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

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 798 (In re the Claim of Wetzel) 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 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

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]*799that 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]*799that 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 798, 729 N.Y.S.2d 817, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-wetzel-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack