In re the Claim of Szumelak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Szumelak

260 A.D.2d 884, 688 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4209

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

DecidedApril 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 884 (In re the Claim of Szumelak) 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 Szumelak, 260 A.D.2d 884, 688 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4209 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed February 27, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

After 35 years of employment as a sales representative for a department store, claimant accepted an early retirement incentive package. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings, we affirm. It has been held that employees who resign in order to take advantage of an early retirement incentive package when continuing work is available have left their employment under disqualifying circumstances (see, Matter of Slezak [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 644; Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decisions.

[885]*885Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed February 27, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

After 35 years of employment as a sales representative for a department store, claimant accepted an early retirement incentive package. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings, we affirm. It has been held that employees who resign in order to take advantage of an early retirement incentive package when continuing work is available have left their employment under disqualifying circumstances (see, Matter of Slezak [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 644; Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decisions.

[885]*885Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 884, 688 N.Y.S.2d 787, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-szumelak-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack