In re the Claim of Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Weinstein

207 A.D.2d 942, 616 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8967

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 942 (In re the Claim of Weinstein) 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 Weinstein, 207 A.D.2d 942, 616 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 9, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that she left her job as a credit manager and moved to Florida because certain incidents which oc[943]*943curred over a two-year period caused her to feel unsafe in New York City. Claimant presented no evidence at the hearing that she suffered from stress as a result of these incidents or that she was advised by a doctor to move due to her fears. In addition, the incidents about which claimant testified were unrelated to her employment and it has been held that such fear does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s job. Under the circumstances, the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause while work was still available is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 September 9, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that she left her job as a credit manager and moved to Florida because certain incidents which oc[943]*943curred over a two-year period caused her to feel unsafe in New York City. Claimant presented no evidence at the hearing that she suffered from stress as a result of these incidents or that she was advised by a doctor to move due to her fears. In addition, the incidents about which claimant testified were unrelated to her employment and it has been held that such fear does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s job. Under the circumstances, the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause while work was still available is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 942, 616 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-weinstein-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack