In re the Claim of Collins

239 A.D.2d 758, 657 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5243
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 758 (In re the Claim of Collins) 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 Collins, 239 A.D.2d 758, 657 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, an instructor at a cosmetology school, met with the school’s owner and expressed his dissatisfaction with the stressful work environment and attitude at the school. In response, the owner attacked claimant’s teaching ability and told him that if he did not like it he could leave. Thereafter, claimant gathered his personal belongings, left the school and did not return. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We agree. The record supports the finding that claimant was not fired and could have just as easily chosen to remain at the employer’s work site, thereby preserving his [759]*759employment. Job dissatisfaction, including dissatisfaction with the work environment, does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Solano [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 845), nor does conflict or disagreement with one’s supervisor (see, Matter of Black [Hartnett], 168 AD2d 728). In addition, the owner’s criticism of claimant’s work did not establish good cause for claimant to leave his employment (see, Matter of Andriano [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 731, 732). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. We have examined claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit."

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, 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 the Claim of Bickerton
6 A.D.3d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Dunster
304 A.D.2d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of El Nachef
288 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Crisalli
279 A.D.2d 925 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Gallagher
273 A.D.2d 662 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Baumann
247 A.D.2d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Viruet
245 A.D.2d 707 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Gutierrez
244 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Shenker
244 A.D.2d 642 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Wolfenburg
242 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Sisti
242 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 758, 657 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-collins-nyappdiv-1997.