In re the Claim of Di Febbo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Di Febbo

243 A.D.2d 804, 662 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9685

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 804 (In re the Claim of Di Febbo) 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 Di Febbo, 243 A.D.2d 804, 662 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 2, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

[805]*805Claimant was employed as a sales manager until he resigned after receiving two work assignments that were to be done on the same day, one of which would have required him to work extra hours during the weekend. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. Evidence presented by the employer disclosed that claimant had failed to speak to his supervisor before resigning regarding his work-related concerns. Hence, claimant did not act in a reasonably prudent manner to protect his employment (see, Matter of Etheridge [Hudacs], 184 AD2d 886, lv denied 80 NY2d 759). Claimant’s contention that he did not resign but was “forced out” of his job after he refused to “cover” for the misdeeds of his predecessor raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Cattan [French & Eur. Pubis.—Hudacs], 187 AD2d 858).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 July 2, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

[805]*805Claimant was employed as a sales manager until he resigned after receiving two work assignments that were to be done on the same day, one of which would have required him to work extra hours during the weekend. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. Evidence presented by the employer disclosed that claimant had failed to speak to his supervisor before resigning regarding his work-related concerns. Hence, claimant did not act in a reasonably prudent manner to protect his employment (see, Matter of Etheridge [Hudacs], 184 AD2d 886, lv denied 80 NY2d 759). Claimant’s contention that he did not resign but was “forced out” of his job after he refused to “cover” for the misdeeds of his predecessor raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Cattan [French & Eur. Pubis.—Hudacs], 187 AD2d 858).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 804, 662 N.Y.S.2d 932, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-di-febbo-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack