From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 29, 1998
246 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

Decided January 29, 1998

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Claimant was a security guard until his employment was terminated because he had failed to become licensed as required by State law. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause pursuant to the doctrine of provoked discharge. Substantial evidence supports this decision. The record reveals that claimant's application for a security guard license was denied because he failed to submit in a timely fashion the documents required by the State Division of Licensing Services to complete his license application. Because claimant was rendered ineligible for employment as a security guard once his license application was denied, the employer had no other choice but to terminate his employment. Under the circumstances, claimant provoked his own discharge through his conduct which constituted a voluntary leaving of employment without good cause (see, Matter of James [Levine], 34 N.Y.2d 491, 497).

Cardona, P.J., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 29, 1998
246 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Parker

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ROBERT H. PARKER, Appellant. JOHN E…

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
667 N.Y.S.2d 1000

Citing Cases

Matter of the Claim of Walsh

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a certified nursing assistant at a nursing home after the…

Matter of Joseph

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant lost his employment under…