In re the Claim of Goldstein
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 2, 1997, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant was employed for eight years by a law firm as a
The record supports the Board’s findings that claimant made diligent efforts to protect her employment by requesting a leave, maintaining regular contact with the employer during her absence and making diligent efforts in the course thereof to obtain acceptable child care. Under the circumstances presented here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was entitled to receive benefits (see generally, Matter of Bookhard [New York City Law Dept. — Roberts], 131 AD2d 912 [Board ruled claimant entitled to benefits after lack of child care caused her to take leave of absence from law school, precipitating her firing from employment that required law school enrollment]; cf., Matter of Romano [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 690 [Board ruled claimant, who left employment due to lack of child care and failed to ask employer for leave of absence, disqualified from receiving benefits).
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.