In re the Claim of Desjardins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Desjardins

262 A.D.2d 690, 690 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6238

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

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 690 (In re the Claim of Desjardins) 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 Desjardins, 262 A.D.2d 690, 690 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 22, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant, a training specialist for an insurance company, accepted a resignation incentive package offered by the employer in an attempt to downsize its work force. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. While claimant was not assured job security, she was never informed that her job was being eliminated; in fact, there was no downsizing in claimant’s department until four years after she resigned. Furthermore, in addition to assigning claimant increased tasks, more training for her department was planned. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944; Matter of Fontaine [Department of Air Force—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 641).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, 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 22, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant, a training specialist for an insurance company, accepted a resignation incentive package offered by the employer in an attempt to downsize its work force. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. While claimant was not assured job security, she was never informed that her job was being eliminated; in fact, there was no downsizing in claimant’s department until four years after she resigned. Furthermore, in addition to assigning claimant increased tasks, more training for her department was planned. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944; Matter of Fontaine [Department of Air Force—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 641).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 690, 690 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-desjardins-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack