TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Claim of Betancourt

In the Matter of the Claim of Robert Betancourt, Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner

In re the Claim of Betancourt, 60 A.D.2d 719 (1977)
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
December 29, 1977
Citations
60 A.D.2d 719401 N.Y.S.2d 81977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14750

Opinion of the Court

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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 10, 1976, which denied an application to reconsider its prior decision and from a decision filed June 3, 1976 sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective September 9, 1975 because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith and denying claimant’s application for vocational training pursuant to section 599 of the Labor Law. While it is reasonably certain that claimant is not guilty of misconduct as to his employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art 18), it is established that he lost his employment by voluntarily leaving the same through conduct provoking his discharge because the employer had no alternative (see Matter of Keenan [Levine], 51 AD2d 596 ; cf. Matter of De Grego [Levine], 39 NY2d 180, 183 ). The board clearly considered the excuse proffered by the claimant as to his possession of the gun and found a failure to establish good cause. The decision of the board appears to hold there was misconduct, but it also held: "Claimant’s absence from work was due to his incarceration because of his own violation of the penal law.” This is sufficient as a finding of voluntary leaving of employment and the decisions should be affirmed. Decisions affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur; Main, J., concurs in the result only.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1984: 11989: 11992: 119842026peak 1984 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor554 A.2d 1337 (N.J. 1989)
  2. Ford v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission of Missouri841 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)
  3. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Stirrat688 S.W.2d 750 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Claim of De Grego, 347 N.E.2d 611 (N.Y. 1976) 40
In re the Claim of Keenan, 51 A.D.2d 596 (1976) 3

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