In re the Claim of Scarlino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Scarlino

243 A.D.2d 800, 662 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9684

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 800 (In re the Claim of Scarlino) 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 Scarlino, 243 A.D.2d 800, 662 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 17, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The employer gave claimant, a secretary, permission to reduce her employment to a three-day work week for a one-month period in order to accommodate the medical needs of her father. When the employer refused to extend this part-time schedule indefinitely, claimant resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. With few exceptions, it has been held that caring for a sick relative is not a compelling reason for leaving employment (see, Matter of Edwards [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 895). In this matter, no medical proof was submitted to show that the help rendered by claimant to her father on her days off was medically necessary, nor did she request a leave of absence which would have protected her future employment (see, Matter of Polax [New York City Dept. of Correction—Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919). The ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 17, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The employer gave claimant, a secretary, permission to reduce her employment to a three-day work week for a one-month period in order to accommodate the medical needs of her father. When the employer refused to extend this part-time schedule indefinitely, claimant resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. With few exceptions, it has been held that caring for a sick relative is not a compelling reason for leaving employment (see, Matter of Edwards [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 895). In this matter, no medical proof was submitted to show that the help rendered by claimant to her father on her days off was medically necessary, nor did she request a leave of absence which would have protected her future employment (see, Matter of Polax [New York City Dept. of Correction—Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919). The ruling that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is, accordingly, affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 800, 662 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-scarlino-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack