In re the Claim of Zipes

274 A.D.2d 819, 710 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8054
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 20, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 819 (In re the Claim of Zipes) 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 Zipes, 274 A.D.2d 819, 710 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 8, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed by respondent in a part-time capacity to temporarily fill in for another employee. Claimant refused an offer extending his employment because he wanted to pursue a job in his field of specialty as a computer programmer. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause (see, Matter of Livingston [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 665; Matter of Zimmerman [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 648, appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 1025). Moreover, the overpayment of $1,825 in benefits paid to claimant was properly ruled to be recoverable since he cited “lack of work” on his application for benefits as the reason for his separation from employment despite his knowledge that continuing work was available.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Carpinello, Graffeo 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

Related

In re the Claim of Scesa
106 A.D.3d 1298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re the Claim of McKenna
291 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Koller
288 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Epps
276 A.D.2d 997 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D.2d 819, 710 N.Y.S.2d 736, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zipes-nyappdiv-2000.