In re the Claim of White

52 A.D.2d 1003, 383 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12889
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 1003 (In re the Claim of White) 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 White, 52 A.D.2d 1003, 383 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 19, 1975, which rescinded its prior decision filed July 9, 1975 and affirmed the [1004]*1004decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits under the Special Unemployment Assistance Act because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant, a college student, was hired by the City of New York as a clerk under the college aide program at a salary of $3.25 per hour. He could only work 20 hours a week as such aide. In June of 1974 he was promoted to supervisor and allowed to work 35 hours per week at the same rate of pay. In April of 1975 because of New York City’s financial woes he was advised that his shift had to be reduced to the original level of 20 hours per week at the same pay. The issue is whether claimant was fired on April 15, 1975 or left voluntarily because he refused to accept the reduced hourly work schedule. This is a factual issue and there is substantial evidence in the record to support the board’s finding that claimant left voluntarily. Clearly, there was work available for claimant and equally as clear is the fact that his employer would have permitted claimant to continue as a college aide, albeit, with a reduced work schedule. Claimant chose not to and his leaving was voluntary and without good cause. Decision affirmed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of Czamara
184 A.D.2d 983 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Fayle
178 A.D.2d 685 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of McQueen
176 A.D.2d 413 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Minfield v. Bernardi
460 N.E.2d 766 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1984)
Wasylk v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
454 N.E.2d 1243 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 A.D.2d 1003, 383 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-white-nyappdiv-1976.