In re the Claim of Wachtel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Wachtel

168 A.D.2d 773, 564 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 1, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he refused employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that he refused an offer of temporary employment because he was still waiting to hear from some firms with which he had interviewed for a permanent position. [774] However, refusing an offer of employment because it is only temporary does not constitute good cause (see, Matter of Murphy [Ross], 82 AD2d 970; Matter of McCarthy [Continental Tel. Co.—Ross], 82 AD2d 1014, 1015). Under the circumstances, the determination finding claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits must be upheld as it is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gray [Roberts], 130 AD2d 904, 905; Matter of Murphy [Ross], supra).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

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 September 1, 1989, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he refused employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that he refused an offer of temporary employment because he was still waiting to hear from some firms with which he had interviewed for a permanent position. [774] However, refusing an offer of employment because it is only temporary does not constitute good cause (see, Matter of Murphy [Ross], 82 AD2d 970; Matter of McCarthy [Continental Tel. Co.—Ross], 82 AD2d 1014, 1015). Under the circumstances, the determination finding claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits must be upheld as it is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gray [Roberts], 130 AD2d 904, 905; Matter of Murphy [Ross], supra).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Wachtel, 168 A.D.2d 773, 564 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

168 A.D.2d 773 (In re the Claim of Wachtel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related