From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Szatko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

March 7, 1991

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Contrary to claimant's contention, the job he was offered was a suitable offer of employment in that it was within the scope of his training and experience and very similar to his previous job with this employer, which also did not require the use of claimant's two-year degree in electronics. Although claimant argues that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board failed to credit his testimony over that of his employer, it is well established that it is for the Board, and not this court, to assess credibility (see, Matter of Smertenko [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 694). In any event, claimant even testified that he had done some of the tasks he might now have to perform when he previously worked for the employer. Under the circumstances, the decision finding claimant ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he refused employment without good cause must be upheld as it is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Weisberg [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 681; Matter of Hoffman [Catherwood], 34 A.D.2d 871).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Crew III, and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Szatko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 7, 1991
171 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Szatko

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of RICHARD J. SZATKO, Appellant. US MATERIAL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 7, 1991

Citations

171 A.D.2d 911 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 784

Citing Cases

Matter of Wilson

Moreover, he was reasonably fitted by training and experience to fulfill the duties involved, e.g., keeping…

Matter of D'Allesandro

We note that the fact that the salary offered was less than that previously earned by claimant does not…