In re the Claim of Stehnach

62 A.D.3d 1192, 882 N.Y.S.2d 314
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 21, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 1192 (In re the Claim of Stehnach) 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 Stehnach, 62 A.D.3d 1192, 882 N.Y.S.2d 314 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 14, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause. “A claimant who refuses to accept a job for which he or she is reasonably suited by training and experience will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” (Matter of Guzenski [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 801, 802 [2005] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Schirra [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2007]; Matter of Kurtz [Rush Henrietta Cent. School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 37 AD3d 895, 896 [2007]). Here, claimant, who previously held a number of administrative positions involving “varying degrees of data entry,” refused a temporary position as a data entry clerk due to “the tiresome repetitious nature of the work.” Having performed similar work in the past, claimant was qualified for the proffered position (see Matter of Schirra [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d at 1068), and neither her dislike of that type of work nor her stated desire to wait for a better opportunity constitutes good cause for refusing an offer of suitable employment (cf. Matter of De Marco [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 732 [2004]). Accordingly, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Kane and Kavanagh, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Guido
108 A.D.3d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re the Claim of Southern-Penn
83 A.D.3d 1318 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Ruiz
70 A.D.3d 1098 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D.3d 1192, 882 N.Y.S.2d 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-stehnach-nyappdiv-2009.