You are here: / / CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVOKE HER DISCHARGE AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BE...

CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVOKE HER DISCHARGE AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because attempted in good faith to comply with the residency requirement for her position with the city and therefore did not provoke her discharge:

“Provoked discharge . . . is a narrowly drawn legal fiction designed to apply where an employee voluntarily engages in conduct which transgresses a legitimate known obligation and leaves the employer no choice but to discharge him [or her]” … . “Whether [a] claimant's actions constituted a voluntary leaving of employment without good cause by provoking his [or her] discharge is a factual determination for the [B]oard” … . Here, claimant's testimony established that she began living with her cousin in an apartment in New York City in an attempt to comply with the employer's residency requirements, as well as to accommodate her school schedule. Although claimant also spent time with her husband in an apartment outside New York City, the employer acknowledged that an individual could maintain more than one residence, even if one was outside New York City, and still be in compliance with the residency requirement. Claimant pays her cousin money to live in the apartment and to help offset expenses, and she receives mail at that address, including bank account and credit card statements. Claimant also pays New York City income taxes. Moreover, claimant testified that, because she did not fully understand the residency requirement, she inquired to both her supervisor and the employer's personnel department as to whether she was considered to be in compliance with the necessary requirement; however, those inquiries went unanswered. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant did not voluntarily engage in conduct that transgressed the employer's mandate so as to find that she provoked her discharge … . Matter of Rosseychuk (City of New York–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 01885, 3rd Dept 3-17-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT DID NOT PROVOKE HER DISCHARGE)

You might also like
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Past Recollection Recorded and Hearsay Inadmissible at Trial Properly Considered in Opposition to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion
The State’s “Donate Life Registry” (Re: Consent to Organ Donation) Is a Governmental, Not Proprietary, Function
DEATH RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER, A NON-PROFIT WHICH PROMOTES GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH (THIRD DEPT). ​
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING DOES NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IF THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE REFEREE’S REPORT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE DIRECTLY TO SUPREME COURT (THIRD DEPT).
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CONTROLLED THIS ARBITRATION PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE HEALTH BENEFITS FOR RETIRED FIREFIGHTERS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S CONVICTION FOR THE UNLAWFUL MANUFACTURE OF METHAMPHETAMINES DID NOT CONSTITUTE PROOF THAT CLAIMANT PERFORMED WORK OR MADE FALSE STATEMENTS REGARDING WORK SUCH THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS UPON RELEASE FROM PRISON (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

VERDICT FINDING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT BUT HER NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE... NEWSPAPER CARRIER WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS.