In re the Claim of Wetzel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Wetzel

286 A.D.2d 798, 729 N.Y.S.2d 817, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8408

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 13, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 6, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a production worker in a glass factory until she resigned to return to her home in Pennsylvania with her husband who had recently retired from employment with the same employer. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [799] that claimant’s decision to leave her employment, while understandable, constituted personal and noncompelling reasons for purposes of eligibility for benefits (see, Matter of Dampman [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 940; Matter of Gawerecki [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 809; Matter of Conti [Hudacs], 186 AD2d 303). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, 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 February 6, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a production worker in a glass factory until she resigned to return to her home in Pennsylvania with her husband who had recently retired from employment with the same employer. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [799] that claimant’s decision to leave her employment, while understandable, constituted personal and noncompelling reasons for purposes of eligibility for benefits (see, Matter of Dampman [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 940; Matter of Gawerecki [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 809; Matter of Conti [Hudacs], 186 AD2d 303). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Wetzel, 286 A.D.2d 798, 729 N.Y.S.2d 817, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

286 A.D.2d 798 (In re the Claim of Wetzel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related