In re the Claim of Zimmerman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zimmerman

252 A.D.2d 648, 675 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8078

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 648 (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, 252 A.D.2d 648, 675 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 6, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for a temporary employment service and, among other jobs, was assigned to work as a receptionist for one of the employer’s clients. Claimant refused an offer extending the temporary receptionist assignment because she wanted to pursue full-time employment with health benefits or, in the alternative, finalize her arrangements to participate in an educational retraining course for which she had not yet been accepted. Under these circumstances, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see, e.g., Matter of Cancellieri [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 769; Matter of Tucker [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 810; Matter of Wachtel [Hartnett], 168 AD2d 773), resulting in the denial of her application for approval of vocational training pursuant to Labor Law § 599.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, 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 May 6, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for a temporary employment service and, among other jobs, was assigned to work as a receptionist for one of the employer’s clients. Claimant refused an offer extending the temporary receptionist assignment because she wanted to pursue full-time employment with health benefits or, in the alternative, finalize her arrangements to participate in an educational retraining course for which she had not yet been accepted. Under these circumstances, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see, e.g., Matter of Cancellieri [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 769; Matter of Tucker [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 810; Matter of Wachtel [Hartnett], 168 AD2d 773), resulting in the denial of her application for approval of vocational training pursuant to Labor Law § 599.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 648, 675 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zimmerman-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack