Claim of Volpe v. Sweeney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Volpe v. Sweeney

232 A.D.2d 798, 648 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10268

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 798 (Claim of Volpe v. Sweeney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Volpe v. Sweeney, 232 A.D.2d 798, 648 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 20, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a building manager for a residential co-operative apartment building from June 1991 to December 1994. The terms of claimant’s employment provided that he would work four hours per day but made no provision for payment for any overtime hours that he voluntarily worked. Claimant resigned in January 1995, complaining that he had not received a raise in two years and had not been compensated for his overtime hours. The Board found that claimant had voluntarily left his employment without good cause and disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm.

Set forth in the record is claimant’s testimony that he left his job because he was dissatisfied with both his compensation and his workload. Dissatisfaction with wages and workload do not, however, constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Kilgallen [Sweeney], 222 AD2d 832, 833; Matter of Rosenfield [Hudacs], 205 AD2d 823, 824). We conclude that the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause was supported by substantial evidence.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 20, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a building manager for a residential co-operative apartment building from June 1991 to December 1994. The terms of claimant’s employment provided that he would work four hours per day but made no provision for payment for any overtime hours that he voluntarily worked. Claimant resigned in January 1995, complaining that he had not received a raise in two years and had not been compensated for his overtime hours. The Board found that claimant had voluntarily left his employment without good cause and disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. We affirm.

Set forth in the record is claimant’s testimony that he left his job because he was dissatisfied with both his compensation and his workload. Dissatisfaction with wages and workload do not, however, constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Kilgallen [Sweeney], 222 AD2d 832, 833; Matter of Rosenfield [Hudacs], 205 AD2d 823, 824). We conclude that the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left his job without good cause was supported by substantial evidence.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 798, 648 N.Y.S.2d 482, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-volpe-v-sweeney-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack