Ruggilo v. Levine
| Decision Date | 19 February 1976 |
| Citation | 380 N.Y.S.2d 104,51 A.D.2d 838 |
| Parties | Claim of Terry M. RUGGILO, Appellant, v. Louis L. LEVINE, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Terry M. Ruggilo, pro se.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Mitchell H. Cobert, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Before GREENBLOTT, J.P., and MAIN, LARKIN, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 16, 1975, which affirmed the decision of the Referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective April 11, 1975 because, without good cause, she refused employment for which she was reasonably fitted by training and experience.
Claimant was classified and worked as an executive secretary in her previous employment earning $12,500 a year. Claimant refused employment in a position calling for an executive secretary with five plus years of experience at a salary of $12,000 per year at 40 Wall Street because she claimed it was too far from her residence in Queens and was not a position for which she was reasonably fitted by training and experience. The board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and must be sustained. The question of whether a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bunker v. Labor and Industry Review Com'n
...the employee to change residences. See Curtis v. Mississippi Employ. Sec. Comm'n, 451 So.2d 736 (Miss.1984); Ruggilo v. Levine, 51 A.D.2d 838, 380 N.Y.S.2d 104 (1976). The judicial interpretations of § 108.04(7), STATS., and the "available for work" criterion support our conclusion that loc......
-
Claim of Ostrove
...of one and one-half hours, did not justify claimant's resignation (Matter of Kudysch 72 A.D.2d 901, 422 N.Y.S.2d 180; Matter of Ruggilo 51 A.D.2d 838, 380 N.Y.S.2d 104). Nor did claimant's unsubstantiated allegation that the new job site represented an unsafe place to work constitute good c......
- Haas v. Levine