In re the Claim of Rubinstein

33 A.D.2d 950, 306 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5688
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 1970
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 950 (In re the Claim of Rubinstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Claim of Rubinstein, 33 A.D.2d 950, 306 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Reynolds, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits effective July 11, 1968 on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1), that he was overpaid $165 in benefits ruled to be recoverable and that claimant willfully misrepresented to obtain benefits for which a forfeiture of 12 effective days was imposed. The claimant and his employer presented different versions as to what precipitated claimant’s quitting his employment as a salesman trainee. The resolution of this factual dispute, particularly as the decision depends upon issues of credibility, and the subsequent question of whether the separation was for good cause within the meaning of the Labor Law are both within the sole province of the board if its determinations are supported by substantial evidence (e.g., Matter of Weber [Catherwood], 32 A D 2d 697; Matter of Seldin [Catherwood], 31 A D 2d 575). On the instant record we cannot say that the board could not find that claimant left his employment “ because he did not like the job and for other reasons which were not immediate and compelling” and that “under the circumstances [he] left employment without good cause ”. Similarly the determination that claimant made a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits is factual, and we find no basis advanced here to disturb the board’s decision as to this issue (e.g., Matter of Vick [Catherwood], 12 A D 2d 120). Decision affirmed, without costs. Reynolds, J. P., Staley, Jr., Greehblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J. P.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of Immerso
195 A.D.2d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Aronson
194 A.D.2d 1046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Bishop
193 A.D.2d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Kopels
193 A.D.2d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore
191 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Jakab
186 A.D.2d 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Adatto
168 A.D.2d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
In re the Claim of Dalland
53 A.D.2d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Fontana
53 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Zurzolo
53 A.D.2d 758 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Serrano
52 A.D.2d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Schwartz
51 A.D.2d 1097 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Weitzman
51 A.D.2d 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Burgess
51 A.D.2d 606 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
In re the Claim of Decker
50 A.D.2d 1030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Chassman
50 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Bickman
50 A.D.2d 956 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Lightstone
50 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Trpik
50 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
In re the Claim of Shtohryn
50 A.D.2d 682 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.2d 950, 306 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rubinstein-nyappdiv-1970.