In re the Claim of Rulka

249 A.D.2d 876, 672 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 876 (In re the Claim of Rulka) 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 Rulka, 249 A.D.2d 876, 672 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 11, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a home health care attendant when she reportedly informed her employer that she wished to end her current assignment to attend school. Claimant then began attending a full-time clerical and bookkeeping program and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. She also sought certification for training pursuant to Labor Law § 599. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause, disapproved her application for training and charged her with an overpayment of benefits. We affirm. Voluntarily leaving one’s employment to attend school does not constitute good cause under the Labor Law (see, Matter of Kucich [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 929; Matter of Weremblewski [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1030). To the extent that claimant’s version of the events surrounding her departure differed from that of the employer, this conflict presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Mesidor [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 696). Claimant’s additional assertion that job-related depression contributed to her leaving was not substantiated by any medical evidence in the record (see, Matter of Ritchie [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 810).

Mikoll, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

In re the Claim of Trzeciak
298 A.D.2d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Johnston
290 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Jackson
275 A.D.2d 826 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Puente
270 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Monroe
270 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Mondiello
268 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Antezana
261 A.D.2d 704 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Higgins
257 A.D.2d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Mack
257 A.D.2d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Rodriguez
258 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Williams
256 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Aussicker
253 A.D.2d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Lu
253 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Magliaro
252 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Roedel
252 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Crespo
251 A.D.2d 842 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 876, 672 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rulka-nyappdiv-1998.