In re the Claim of Sherman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sherman

285 A.D.2d 788, 729 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383

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

DecidedJuly 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 788 (In re the Claim of Sherman) 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 Sherman, 285 A.D.2d 788, 729 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 5, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her employment as a bartender because her employer would not accommodate her request that her work schedule be arranged around her school schedule. Claimant challenges a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. “Resignation from a job because it conflicts with school has been characterized as leaving employment for personal and noncompelling reasons” (Matter of Ganim [Kamerman & Soniker— Sweeney], 241 AD2d 742, 742 [citation omitted]; see, Matter of Hanukov [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 684). Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Olawale [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 552). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 May 5, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her employment as a bartender because her employer would not accommodate her request that her work schedule be arranged around her school schedule. Claimant challenges a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. “Resignation from a job because it conflicts with school has been characterized as leaving employment for personal and noncompelling reasons” (Matter of Ganim [Kamerman & Soniker— Sweeney], 241 AD2d 742, 742 [citation omitted]; see, Matter of Hanukov [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 684). Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Olawale [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 552). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 788, 729 N.Y.S.2d 202, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sherman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack