In re the Claim of Singh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Singh

247 A.D.2d 666, 668 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 973

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 666 (In re the Claim of Singh) 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 Singh, 247 A.D.2d 666, 668 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 14, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant left his employment at a discount chain store and applied for unemployment insurance benefits stating on his application that he had been “fired”. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had quit his job for personal and noncompelling reasons and that he had made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. The employer’s store manager and accounting department manager testified that claimant had not been fired but had resigned for undisclosed reasons at a time when continuing work was available. The discrepancies between claimant’s testimony regarding the circumstances under which he left his employment and that of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the employer raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752, 753; Matter of Murray [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 649).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and White, 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 February 14, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant left his employment at a discount chain store and applied for unemployment insurance benefits stating on his application that he had been “fired”. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had quit his job for personal and noncompelling reasons and that he had made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. The employer’s store manager and accounting department manager testified that claimant had not been fired but had resigned for undisclosed reasons at a time when continuing work was available. The discrepancies between claimant’s testimony regarding the circumstances under which he left his employment and that of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the employer raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752, 753; Matter of Murray [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 649).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 666, 668 N.Y.S.2d 507, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-singh-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack