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
NO NEED TO SPECIFY CRIME TO BE COMMITTED DURING A CHARGED BURGLARY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION, RESTITUTION FOR AN UNCHARGED BURGLARY IMPROPERLY ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
IN REVIEWING THE GRAND JURY MINUTES, COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS; RATHER THOSE COUNTS SHOULD BE SENT TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE ROAD LEADING TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY WAS PROPERLY CERTIFIED “ABANDONED” SUCH THAT THE MUNICIPALITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS MAINTENANCE; AND PETITIONER STATED AN EQUAL-PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER 42 USC 1983 (THIRD DEPT).
NURSE PROVIDING HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD OF THE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS DID NOT EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY THE SHACKLING OF DEFENDANT’S HANDS DURING HIS TESTIMONY; EVEN IF HIS HANDS WERE UNDER THE TABLE, THE INABILITY TO USE HIS HANDS DURING HIS TESTIMONY WAS PREJUDICIAL; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL APOLOGIZED TO COUNTY COURT AND INDICATED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S BEHAVIOR MAY HAVE CAUSED THE PEOPLE TO HAVE WITHDRAWN A MORE FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER, COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE ASSIGNED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL AND SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO REOFFER THE PRIOR PLEA DEAL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO INVESTIGATE FOUR WITNESSES WHO MAY HAVE CALLED INTO QUESTION THE EYEWITNESS’S ABILITY TO SEE THE SHOOTING AND THE DEFENDANT’S WHEREABOUTS AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Did Not Link Illness Caused by Ingestion of a Ubiquitous Mold to Workplace

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.