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
DESPITE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SEVERAL DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT THAT SHE RETURN TO NEW YORK WITH THE CHILDREN, FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED CUSTODY IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULL HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY.
THE HOME-BUILDER’S CONTRACT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, THE HOMEOWNERS’ BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND HOWEVER; CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO RECOVER IN QUANTUM MERUIT IF, UPON REMITTAL, IT IS DETERMINED THE CONTRACTOR’S BREACH, IF ANY, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIAL (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, DECEDENT’S HUSBAND, WAS ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S UNWITNESSED DEATH DUE TO CARDIAC ARREST (THIRD DEPT).
ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT THERE WAS A WEAPON IN HIS BACKPACK WAS A RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUESTION BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WAS THEREFORE NOT ADMISSIBLE AS “SPONTANEOUS;” THE STATEMENT AND THE WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (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.