Opinion
October 23, 1969
Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 15, 1968, disqualifying her from receiving benefits on the ground that she refused employment without good cause (Labor Law, § 593). After working as a sequins operator for two and one half years, she devoted 70 hours to a manicurist course, for which she paid $70 tuition. Her last job was as a manicurist with earnings averaging somewhat less than she received as a sequins operator. She refused employment as a sequins operator with the base year employer at a wage rate higher than she received as a manicurist on the ground that it would downgrade her from her classification as a manicurist. What constitutes good cause is a factual determination of the board (Labor Law, § 593) and where, as here, it is supported by substantial evidence, it must be affirmed. A claimant may not avoid disqualification for refusal of employment without good cause merely because the offer of employment does not fully utilize all of her skills. ( Matter of Linker [ Catherwood], 27 A.D.2d 884.) While the full utilization of skills is desirable, the statutory test of disqualification is the refusal of employment for which claimant is reasonably fitted by training and experience. ( Matter of De Bruyne [ Corsi], 278 App. Div. 103 6.) A person who is suited for two types of employment does not qualify for benefits if he refuses one merely because he prefers the other. ( Matter of Ranno [ Catherwood], 21 A.D.2d 721. ) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P.J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur in memorandum by Greenblott, J.