In re the Claim of Schonwit

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Schonwit

241 A.D.2d 618, 659 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7208

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 618 (In re the Claim of Schonwit) 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 Schonwit, 241 A.D.2d 618, 659 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 13, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, employed by an insurance agency in which he [619]*619owned a 25% interest, resigned his position as part of a plan, formulated with another 25% shareholder, to force out the remaining 50% shareholder in order to gain control of the business. Claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he left his employment without good cause.

A claimant who has sold his interest in an employing corporation and resigned his employment without a compelling reason, such as impending bankruptcy, may be determined to be disqualified from receiving benefits (see, Matter of Frisina [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 887; Matter of Ballard [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 428, 429). In this matter, substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s motivation for leaving his employment was personal and noncompelling. His remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, 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 November 13, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, employed by an insurance agency in which he [619]*619owned a 25% interest, resigned his position as part of a plan, formulated with another 25% shareholder, to force out the remaining 50% shareholder in order to gain control of the business. Claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he left his employment without good cause.

A claimant who has sold his interest in an employing corporation and resigned his employment without a compelling reason, such as impending bankruptcy, may be determined to be disqualified from receiving benefits (see, Matter of Frisina [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 887; Matter of Ballard [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 428, 429). In this matter, substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant’s motivation for leaving his employment was personal and noncompelling. His remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 618, 659 N.Y.S.2d 345, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-schonwit-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack