In re the Claim of Clement

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Clement

254 A.D.2d 652, 679 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11520

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 29, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 30, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant, the sole employee at a small boutique selling expensive men’s clothing, refused the employer’s request that she transfer to a larger store a few blocks away. While claimant testified that she believed her commissions would be reduced because she would have been required to work with another salesperson, the employer disagreed. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, noting numerous inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony, credited the testimony of the employer and denied claimant’s application for benefits upon the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Failure to accept a new work assignment involving similar work that does not result in a reduction in pay has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Guida [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 643; Matter of Suggs [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 849). Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, id.). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 December 30, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant, the sole employee at a small boutique selling expensive men’s clothing, refused the employer’s request that she transfer to a larger store a few blocks away. While claimant testified that she believed her commissions would be reduced because she would have been required to work with another salesperson, the employer disagreed. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, noting numerous inconsistencies in claimant’s testimony, credited the testimony of the employer and denied claimant’s application for benefits upon the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Failure to accept a new work assignment involving similar work that does not result in a reduction in pay has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Guida [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 643; Matter of Suggs [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 849). Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, id.). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

In re the Claim of Clement, 254 A.D.2d 652, 679 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 652 (In re the Claim of Clement) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related