In re Lugo
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Gilgoff (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- In re Montag (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re the Claim of Perez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re the Claim of Correa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- In re Gonzalez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re the Claim of Soler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re the Claim of Munoz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re the Claim of Uemura (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
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 July 27, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
Claimant was employed as a porter by a real estate management company for approximately 15 years. He left his employment in October 2000 and moved to Puerto Rico in order to care for his ailing brother. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm.
An employee who leaves his or her job for the purpose of relocating to care for a sick relative may be found to be disqualified from receiving benefits unless there is shown to be a compelling medical necessity for the relocation (see, Matter of Stewart [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 552; Matter of Morales [Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 685, 686). The record herein fails to demonstrate that claimant’s caring for his brother in Puerto Rico was medically necessary. The report submitted by the brother’s treating physician discloses that the treatment prescribed for him is daily medication and a bland diet. There is, however, no indication that claimant’s brother is incapable of adhering to this regimen on his own. In the absence of a showing that claimant’s relocation to Puerto Rico
Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.