In re the Claim of Trzeciak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Trzeciak

298 A.D.2d 754, 748 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10103

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

DecidedOctober 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 754 (In re the Claim of Trzeciak) 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 Trzeciak, 298 A.D.2d 754, 748 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10103 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal [755]*755from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 3, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from his employment as a syrup technician for a soda business effective February 2001 claiming that a broken ventilation system put his health at risk. The record establishes, however, that the ventilation system was repaired within two days of it becoming inoperative and that during that time claimant was permitted to work in an alternate area. Furthermore, claimant’s contention that he left due to exposure to ozone gas was belied by the fact that the ozone machine was replaced in June 2000 and he had no further exposure to this gas. In any event, other than a generalized statement from a doctor regarding effects of ozone on human health, claimant offered no medical evidence to substantiate that the conditions at his office required him to quit (see Matter of Soto [Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 851, 852; Matter of Rulka [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 876). Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 [755]*755from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 3, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from his employment as a syrup technician for a soda business effective February 2001 claiming that a broken ventilation system put his health at risk. The record establishes, however, that the ventilation system was repaired within two days of it becoming inoperative and that during that time claimant was permitted to work in an alternate area. Furthermore, claimant’s contention that he left due to exposure to ozone gas was belied by the fact that the ozone machine was replaced in June 2000 and he had no further exposure to this gas. In any event, other than a generalized statement from a doctor regarding effects of ozone on human health, claimant offered no medical evidence to substantiate that the conditions at his office required him to quit (see Matter of Soto [Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 851, 852; Matter of Rulka [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 876). Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 754, 748 N.Y.S.2d 624, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-trzeciak-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack