In re the Claim of Dougal
Opinion of the Court
We affirm. Claimant had performed this type of temporary seasonal work for the employer during the past four years but testified that he received a document outlining revised responsibilities. Claimant further testified that he understood he would not be performing field inspections and would not be entitled to mileage reimbursement for his commute. Inasmuch as claimant was aware of the terms and conditions of the position and accepted the same — including the somewhat lengthy commute of 50 miles — substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause (see Matter of Radulescu [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 721, 721-722 [2001]; Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 699 [1998]; Matter of Dunn [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 798, 799 [1997]). Likewise, the Board’s determination that claimant made a false statement on his benefits application is adequately supported by claimant’s own testimony, which reflects that he worked four days the week of June 29, 2009 through July 5, 2009 but certified that he had worked no days during that period (see Matter of Lignos [Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1316, 1317 [2008]; Matter of Small [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 873, 873 [2005]).
Peters, J.E, Rose, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.