In re the Claim of Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Soto

284 A.D.2d 851, 726 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6860

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

DecidedJune 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 851 (In re the Claim of Soto) 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 Soto, 284 A.D.2d 851, 726 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 7, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

[852]*852Claimant contends that she resigned from her position as a traffic manager in a factory because the stress engendered by her job adversely affected her health. Claimant offered no medical evidence to support her contention (see, Matter of Spaulding [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 881, 882; Matter of Cooper [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 678). Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see, Matter of Maine [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 854; Matter of Cooper [Sweeney], supra).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Mugglin and Rose, 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 April 7, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

[852]*852Claimant contends that she resigned from her position as a traffic manager in a factory because the stress engendered by her job adversely affected her health. Claimant offered no medical evidence to support her contention (see, Matter of Spaulding [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 881, 882; Matter of Cooper [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 678). Under these circumstances, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause (see, Matter of Maine [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 854; Matter of Cooper [Sweeney], supra).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 851, 726 N.Y.S.2d 597, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-soto-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack