In re the Claim of Costello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Costello

268 A.D.2d 845, 702 N.Y.S.2d 412, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 576

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 845 (In re the Claim of Costello) 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 Costello, 268 A.D.2d 845, 702 N.Y.S.2d 412, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) 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 he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed May 29, 1998, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a previous decision adhering to its prior decision.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s December 30, 1996 decision finding that claimant had voluntarily left his employment without good cause and disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant testified that although he cited “personal reasons” and “career change” when he quit his job, he actually did so because he was overworked and felt he needed more training. Nevertheless, claimant did not seek medical attention or bring his complaints of work stress to his supervisor. Notably, the Board credited testimony indicating that the employer was pleased with claimant’s job performance. This Court has found in similar cases that dissatisfaction with one’s workload does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Sibertzeff [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 936). Thus, we find no reason to disturb the decision denying claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits.

Finally, our review of the record discloses no abuse of the Board’s discretion in denying claimant’s later application to reopen a March 20, 1997 decision which, upon reconsideration, adhered to the December 30, 1996 decision (see generally, Matter of De Prima [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 715, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1040).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) 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 he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed May 29, 1998, which denied claimant’s application for reconsideration of a previous decision adhering to its prior decision.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s December 30, 1996 decision finding that claimant had voluntarily left his employment without good cause and disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant testified that although he cited “personal reasons” and “career change” when he quit his job, he actually did so because he was overworked and felt he needed more training. Nevertheless, claimant did not seek medical attention or bring his complaints of work stress to his supervisor. Notably, the Board credited testimony indicating that the employer was pleased with claimant’s job performance. This Court has found in similar cases that dissatisfaction with one’s workload does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Sibertzeff [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 936). Thus, we find no reason to disturb the decision denying claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits.

Finally, our review of the record discloses no abuse of the Board’s discretion in denying claimant’s later application to reopen a March 20, 1997 decision which, upon reconsideration, adhered to the December 30, 1996 decision (see generally, Matter of De Prima [Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 715, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1040).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 845, 702 N.Y.S.2d 412, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-costello-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack