TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Claim of Caraballo

In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Caraballo, Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner

In re the Claim of Caraballo, 25 A.D.2d 580 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 8, 1966
Judges
Aulisi, Gibson, Hamm, Herlihy, Taylor
Citations
25 A.D.2d 580266 N.Y.S.2d 8271966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5019

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Memorandum by the Court. This is an appeal by claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying her from receiving benefits on the ground that she left her employment without good cause. (Unemployment *581 Insurance Law [Labor Law, art. 18], § 593, subd. 1, par. [a].) Claimant, employed as a legal secretary, sought a leave of absence for two and one half months in order that she might travel abroad in relief of her asserted physical exhaustion. Despite the refusal of the employer to accede to her request and the knowledge that her unauthorized journey would result in her replacement, claimant departed on October 29, 1964 from New York City for Bombay, India, and returned on January 11,1965. Meanwhile her position had been filled by the employer. Its representative testified that a shorter period of leave, if requested, could have been arranged. The Referee, whose opinion was adopted by the board, found “no evidence of any compelling necessity for claimant to leave her employment” and concluded that she had voluntarily left it without good cause. We have consistently held that what constitutes good cause is a question of fact (Matter of Karman [Lubin], 2 A D 2d 626; Matter of Lipschitz [Lubin], 7 A D 2d 777; Matter of Salit [Catherwood], 15 A D 2d 852; Matter of Ganza [Catherwood], 16 A D 2d 997; Unemployment Insurance Law [Labor Law, art. 18], § 623). On the present record we perceive no basis to disturb the determination of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1998: 119982026peak 1998 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Claim of Gervits247 A.D.2d 749 (1998)

Most recent

  1. In re the Claim of Gervits247 A.D.2d 749 (1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list