In re the Claim of Autera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Autera

284 A.D.2d 767, 727 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621

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

DecidedJune 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 767 (In re the Claim of Autera) 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 the Claim of Autera, 284 A.D.2d 767, 727 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 8, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her position as a secretary by accepting a voluntary buy-out incentive after having been offered a choice between the buy-out or a lateral transfer to a secretarial position in another department. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. It is well settled that acceptance of a buy-out incentive in exchange for resignation does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944; Matter of Tanico [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 769). Likewise, we are unpersuaded by claimant’s assertion that she felt coerced into taking the buy-out package inasmuch as she had heard that the company would likely be downsizing the department to which she had been offered a transfer. Resigning from one’s employment in anticipation of a possible future discharge has been found to constitute a voluntary resignation from employment (see, Matter of Paul [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Sweeney], 242 AD2d 767; Matter of Tanico [Sweeney], supra). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 September 8, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her position as a secretary by accepting a voluntary buy-out incentive after having been offered a choice between the buy-out or a lateral transfer to a secretarial position in another department. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. It is well settled that acceptance of a buy-out incentive in exchange for resignation does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944; Matter of Tanico [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 769). Likewise, we are unpersuaded by claimant’s assertion that she felt coerced into taking the buy-out package inasmuch as she had heard that the company would likely be downsizing the department to which she had been offered a transfer. Resigning from one’s employment in anticipation of a possible future discharge has been found to constitute a voluntary resignation from employment (see, Matter of Paul [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Sweeney], 242 AD2d 767; Matter of Tanico [Sweeney], supra). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 767, 727 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-autera-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack