From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Orenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 16, 1991
173 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 16, 1991

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


The question of whether a claimant has refused alternative employment without good cause is a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (Matter of Consentino [Ross], 71 A.D.2d 1042). Here, the record supports the conclusion that claimant left her job because of her dissatisfaction with the reduced earnings that would result from the cut in her work week. As the Board noted, she could have stayed employed and supplemented her earnings with partial unemployment insurance benefits. Therefore, the decision to deny claimant's application for benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, supra). Furthermore, the overpayments made to claimant were properly held recoverable under Labor Law § 597 (4) (see, Matter of Barber [Roberts], 121 A.D.2d 767, 769).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J.P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Orenstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 16, 1991
173 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Orenstein

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of SARA C. ORENSTEIN, Appellant. THOMAS F…

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

Date published: May 16, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 1029 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Citing Cases

Matter of Stoddard

Claimants resigned their employment as retail managers when their hours and salaries were reduced, due to…

Matter of Kabuya

When he was hired, claimant was informed that the employer's business was cyclical and hence there would be…