In re the Claim of Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zimmerman

166 A.D.2d 862, 563 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12817

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 862 (In re the Claim of Zimmerman) 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 Zimmerman, 166 A.D.2d 862, 563 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 26, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The record reveals that there was no compelling reason for claimant and her husband to move to Maryland but that it [863]*863was done simply because he had retired and desired to live there. There was also no evidence that claimant could no longer afford to live in the area where she had been employed (see, Matter of Palmieri [Catherwood], 33 AD2d 588). Therefore, the determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 AD2d 166).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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 April 26, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The record reveals that there was no compelling reason for claimant and her husband to move to Maryland but that it [863]*863was done simply because he had retired and desired to live there. There was also no evidence that claimant could no longer afford to live in the area where she had been employed (see, Matter of Palmieri [Catherwood], 33 AD2d 588). Therefore, the determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 AD2d 166).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 862, 563 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zimmerman-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack