In re Casey

37 A.D.3d 964, 829 N.Y.S.2d 750
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 964 (In re Casey) 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
In re Casey, 37 A.D.3d 964, 829 N.Y.S.2d 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 30, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as the manager of one of the employer’s convenience stores. She quit her job purportedly due to recurring staffing problems which required her to work for extended periods without a day off. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Dissatisfaction with one’s working hours does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Benyoussef [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 902, 902 [2005]; Matter of Peak [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 779 [2004]). Although claimant’s long hours were allegedly the result of staffing problems, the employer’s district manager stated that claimant did not advise her of the extent of the problems and that, in any event, she hired sufficient employees during the relevant time frame to obviate the need for claimant to work such hours. Claimant’s contrary testimony presented a cred[965]*965ibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Torres [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1093 [2006]).

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Related

In re Schwartz
62 A.D.3d 1231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re Claim of Diermyer
58 A.D.3d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Scoville
49 A.D.3d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Canty
49 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Javier
48 A.D.3d 1011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Battiste
48 A.D.3d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim Ubl
45 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.3d 964, 829 N.Y.S.2d 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-casey-nyappdiv-2007.