In re the Claim of Vitale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Vitale

263 A.D.2d 758, 692 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8019

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 758 (In re the Claim of Vitale) 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 Vitale, 263 A.D.2d 758, 692 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 17, 1998, 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.

Claimant resigned from her full-time position as a secretary for an investment bank immediately following her maternity leave because her mother could only babysit her child three days a week. The employer was unable to accommodate claimant’s request to change her hours to a part-time schedule. Significantly, claimant neither requested a further leave of absence, which the employer asserts would have been granted, nor expended sufficient effort in searching for acceptable alternative child-care arrangements (see, Matter of Romano [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 690). Thus, under the circumstances, we conclude that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Monreale [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 620).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, 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 March 17, 1998, 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.

Claimant resigned from her full-time position as a secretary for an investment bank immediately following her maternity leave because her mother could only babysit her child three days a week. The employer was unable to accommodate claimant’s request to change her hours to a part-time schedule. Significantly, claimant neither requested a further leave of absence, which the employer asserts would have been granted, nor expended sufficient effort in searching for acceptable alternative child-care arrangements (see, Matter of Romano [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 690). Thus, under the circumstances, we conclude that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Monreale [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 620).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 758, 692 N.Y.S.2d 850, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-vitale-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack