In re the Claim of Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Frankel

236 A.D.2d 773, 654 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2029

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 27, 1997·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 22, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned her position as a medical technician citing a litany of grievances, including the employer’s elimination of health insurance coverage and his closing of a pension and profit sharing plan. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Our review of the record discloses that claimant continued to report to work despite harboring such grievances, thereby waiving her right to assert them as compelling reasons to resign (see, Matter of Hogan [Schenectady Discount Corp.—Levine], 50 AD2d 650). In any event, claimant’s dissatisfaction with her job conditions did not constitute good cause for leaving her employment (see, e.g., Matter of Brabson [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 681; Matter of Wigutow [Roberts], 138 AD2d 817).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, 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 March 22, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned her position as a medical technician citing a litany of grievances, including the employer’s elimination of health insurance coverage and his closing of a pension and profit sharing plan. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Our review of the record discloses that claimant continued to report to work despite harboring such grievances, thereby waiving her right to assert them as compelling reasons to resign (see, Matter of Hogan [Schenectady Discount Corp.—Levine], 50 AD2d 650). In any event, claimant’s dissatisfaction with her job conditions did not constitute good cause for leaving her employment (see, e.g., Matter of Brabson [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 681; Matter of Wigutow [Roberts], 138 AD2d 817).

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

In re the Claim of Frankel, 236 A.D.2d 773, 654 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 773 (In re the Claim of Frankel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related