In re the Claim of Burman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Burman

288 A.D.2d 539, 731 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10019

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 539 (In re the Claim of Burman) 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 Burman, 288 A.D.2d 539, 731 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 27, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a delivery truck driver when he demanded a raise of $50 per week. The employer informed claimant that his demand could not be met but that he would be given a raise of $25 per week. Claimant rejected this offer and immediately quit his employment. He subsequently applied for unemployment insurance benefits stating on the application that he had been fired from his job. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left his employment without good cause. The Board fur[540]*540ther charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment and assessed the loss of benefit days based upon its finding that claimant had made a willful false statement to obtain benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Dissatisfaction with the amount of one’s salary has been held not to constitute good cause for resigning from employment (see, Matter of Naughton [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 812; Matter of Pappas [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 727). Substantial evidence further supports the Board’s finding of a willful false statement to obtain benefits. Claimant’s testimony at the administrative hearing contradicted his prior representation that he was fired as did the testimony of the employer who averred that claimant had affirmatively resigned from his position after his initial demand for a raise was denied (see, Matter of Kerrs [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 530).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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 June 27, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a delivery truck driver when he demanded a raise of $50 per week. The employer informed claimant that his demand could not be met but that he would be given a raise of $25 per week. Claimant rejected this offer and immediately quit his employment. He subsequently applied for unemployment insurance benefits stating on the application that he had been fired from his job. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left his employment without good cause. The Board fur[540]*540ther charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment and assessed the loss of benefit days based upon its finding that claimant had made a willful false statement to obtain benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Dissatisfaction with the amount of one’s salary has been held not to constitute good cause for resigning from employment (see, Matter of Naughton [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 812; Matter of Pappas [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 727). Substantial evidence further supports the Board’s finding of a willful false statement to obtain benefits. Claimant’s testimony at the administrative hearing contradicted his prior representation that he was fired as did the testimony of the employer who averred that claimant had affirmatively resigned from his position after his initial demand for a raise was denied (see, Matter of Kerrs [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 530).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 539, 731 N.Y.S.2d 812, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-burman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack