In re the Claim of Washington Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Washington Nelson

173 A.D.2d 995, 569 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6699

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

DecidedMay 9, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 995 (In re the Claim of Washington Nelson) 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 Washington Nelson, 173 A.D.2d 995, 569 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 15, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened its prior decision in claimant’s case only for the purpose of determining whether there was compliance with the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899). Upon reconsideration the Board found no substantial procedural violations warranting a change in its decision denying claimant unemployment insurance benefits. Since claimant does not allege any procedural errors, the Board’s decision should be affirmed. In any event, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause (see, Matter of Fontana [Levine], 53 AD2d 742). The Board was presented with conflicting evidence as to the reasons for claimant’s separation from employment, the resolution of which was for it to determine (see, Matter of Jensen [Levine], 49 AD2d 794). The evidence supports the finding that claimant asked for his [996]*996vacation pay, advised his employer that he was leaving and failed to return at the end of his vacation. The facts also support the further conclusion that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Petty [Roberts], 90 AD2d 604).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Crew III, 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 June 15, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reopened its prior decision in claimant’s case only for the purpose of determining whether there was compliance with the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899). Upon reconsideration the Board found no substantial procedural violations warranting a change in its decision denying claimant unemployment insurance benefits. Since claimant does not allege any procedural errors, the Board’s decision should be affirmed. In any event, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause (see, Matter of Fontana [Levine], 53 AD2d 742). The Board was presented with conflicting evidence as to the reasons for claimant’s separation from employment, the resolution of which was for it to determine (see, Matter of Jensen [Levine], 49 AD2d 794). The evidence supports the finding that claimant asked for his [996]*996vacation pay, advised his employer that he was leaving and failed to return at the end of his vacation. The facts also support the further conclusion that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Petty [Roberts], 90 AD2d 604).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 995, 569 N.Y.S.2d 513, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-washington-nelson-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack