In re the Claim of Sali

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sali

27 A.D.2d 887, 277 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4695

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 9, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 887 (In re the Claim of Sali) 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 Sali, 27 A.D.2d 887, 277 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment as a waiter, without good cause. Claimant’s assertion that he quit his job because his supervisor suggested, two months before that time, that he do so because the work was too hard for him, would not necessarily have constituted good cause, even had the board credited it. (Matter of Le Roy [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 976; Matter of Jacobson [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 733.) In any event, claimant testified, “They didn’t fire me. I quit myself.” When he left, he gave no reason and merely asked for his vacation pay. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Guriam.

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment as a waiter, without good cause. Claimant’s assertion that he quit his job because his supervisor suggested, two months before that time, that he do so because the work was too hard for him, would not necessarily have constituted good cause, even had the board credited it. (Matter of Le Roy [Catherwood], 26 A D 2d 976; Matter of Jacobson [Catherwood], 20 A D 2d 733.) In any event, claimant testified, “They didn’t fire me. I quit myself.” When he left, he gave no reason and merely asked for his vacation pay. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Guriam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 887, 277 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sali-nyappdiv-1967.