Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981

In re the Claim of Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 11, 1981

82 A.D.2d 970; 440 N.Y.S.2d 488; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14705

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

MatterofTweedie[Commr.ofLabor] (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Tweedie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Tweedie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Ruiz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re the Claim of Schirra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Burnett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
In re the Claim of Wachtel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 15, 1980, which affirmed an Administrative Law Judge’s decision sustaining initial determinations of the Industrial Commissioner that claimant was ineligible for benefits because (1) she was not available for employment and (2) she had refused employment without good cause. Issues of fact concerning restrictions imposed on proffered employment (Matter of Beal [Ross], 67 AD2d 1026) are for the board’s determination (Matter ofLunney [Catherwood], 32 AD2d 864), and if supported by substantial evidence, that determination will not be disturbed. Similarly, refusal of employment for good cause is a factual issue solely within the province of the board (Matter of Anderson [Levine], 53 AD2d 771). Refusal of employment that is temporary is not good cause (Matter of Hernandez [Catherwood], 33 AD2d 972), and if the determination is supported by substantial evidence, it will be affirmed (see Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358). Decision affirmed, without costs. Main, J.P., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.