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
PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY IN THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING SUNY ALBANY’S FINDING PETITIONER VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT BY HAVING NONCONSENSUAL SEX; THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAS NO MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT; PETITIONER ALLEGED BIAS ON THE PART OF THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX INVESTIGATOR (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONTINUING BREACHES OF CONTRACT, AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR THE DURATION OF THE DEBT-RIDDEN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, WHICH WAS TERMINATED 25 DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PARENTS COULD NOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE DID NOT SUPPORT AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT UP TO THE PARTIES TO CRAFT A PARENTING-TIME SCHEDULE; A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IN A LINCOLN HEARING HAS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND MUST BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER OBSERVING A TRAFFIC VIOLATION, DIRECTING THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR TO RETURN TO THE CAR AFTER IT PULLED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, AND DETAINING THE DEFENDANT AND CONDUCTING A SEARCH ON THE PROPERTY AFTER THE HOMEOWNER SAID HE DID NOT KNOW THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT’S REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION BASED UPON A CHANGE IN CONDITION FILED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF CLAIMANT’S CAPPED INDEMNITY BENEFITS WAS NOT UNTIMELY (THIRD DEPT).
WHERE THE ORDER DISMISSING A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 AFTER A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN SEEKING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A GENERAL PATTERN OF DELAY THE SAVINGS CLAUSE OF CPLR 205 APPLIES AND THE ACTION MAY BE RE-COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (THIRD DEPT).
CRIME VICTIMS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE A PRISONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE (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 © 2026 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.