In re the Claim of Wigutow

138 A.D.2d 817, 526 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2377
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 10, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 138 A.D.2d 817 (In re the Claim of Wigutow) 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 Wigutow, 138 A.D.2d 817, 526 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2377 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 27, 1987.

Claimant contends that the appeal by the Commissioner of Labor to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, following the decision of the Administrative Law Judge in claimant’s favor, was untimely. The record, however, contains a notice of appeal from the Commissioner indicating a filing date of January 15, 1987, well within the time period prescribed by Labor Law § 621 (1). On the merits, claimant objects to the Board’s finding that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Since general dissatisfaction with job conditions is not a valid excuse to terminate employment and receive benefits (Matter of Reich [Philip Morris, Inc. —Ross], 79 AD2d 841, 842), the Board’s decision must be affirmed. At best, claimant’s arguments establish the existence of substantial evidence which could have supported a Board decision in her favor (see, Matter of Wacksman [County of Nassau—Roberts] 129 AD2d 848), but this provides no basis for disturbing a Board decision to the contrary which is also supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gunnip [Murphy Co.—Roberts] 108 AD2d 1007).

[818]*818Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Levine, Harvey and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re the Claim of Frankel
236 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Schipani
232 A.D.2d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Claim of Vergason
232 A.D.2d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Claim of Trainor
226 A.D.2d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Claim of Hughes
198 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Aronson
194 A.D.2d 1046 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore
191 A.D.2d 914 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of De Guzman
187 A.D.2d 779 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Rego
165 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
In re the Claim of Baker
147 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.2d 817, 526 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-wigutow-nyappdiv-1988.