Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Daunche HICKS, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 17, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as an administrative assistant without good cause when she failed to contact the employer, in a timely manner, regarding her absence from work after December 31, 2002. Although claimant asserts that she contacted the employer to explain that her son was missing, it was within the discretion of the Board to credit the testimony on behalf of the employer that claimant did not call (see Matter of Oku [Commissioner of Labor], 1 A.D.3d 684, 766 N.Y.S.2d 625 [2003]; Matter of Corns [Commissioner of Labor], 272 A.D.2d 711, 708 N.Y.S.2d 913 [2000] ). By failing to timely contact the employer and explain her absence, claimant failed to take reasonable steps to protect her employment (see Matter of Rowe [Commissioner of Labor], 4 A.D.3d 663, 771 N.Y.S.2d 749 [2004]; Matter of Corns [Commissioner of Labor], supra ). Claimant's remaining contentions were not presented at the administrative hearing or made part of the record and are therefore not properly before this Court for consideration (see Matter of Altman [Commissioner of Labor], 3 A.D.3d 658, 770 N.Y.S.2d 467 [2004] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 16, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)