In re the Claim of Gagraj

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gagraj

62 A.D.3d 1135, 878 N.Y.S.2d 822

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

DecidedMay 14, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 1135 (In re the Claim of Gagraj) 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 Gagraj, 62 A.D.3d 1135, 878 N.Y.S.2d 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 12, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a folding machine operator for a printing and binding company, voluntar[1136]*1136ily left his employment without good cause. “Neither general dissatisfaction with working conditions nor the inability to get along with a . . . coworker [has] been found to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment” (Matter of Hutchinson [Commissioner of Labor], 56 AD3d 877, 878 [2008] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Hill [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]). The employer’s representatives testified that claimant left work following a verbal altercation with a coworker—despite being warned, both previously and on the day in question, that if he walked off the job again he would be deemed to have quit. To the extent that claimant testified that he left because he feared for his personal safety, the record as a whole fails to demonstrate that claimant’s belief in this regard was reasonable (see Matter of Kingston [Commissioner of Labor], 4 AD3d 716, 717 [2004]). Moreover, claimant failed to communicate his concerns to the employer prior to leaving and, therefore, did not take reasonable steps to protect his employment (see Matter of Crawford [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2008]; Matter of Peak [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 779 [2004]). Finally, claimant’s contrary testimony as to the circumstances under which his employment ended presented a credibility determination for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Crandall-Mars [Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2008]).

Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, 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 12, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a folding machine operator for a printing and binding company, voluntar[1136]*1136ily left his employment without good cause. “Neither general dissatisfaction with working conditions nor the inability to get along with a . . . coworker [has] been found to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment” (Matter of Hutchinson [Commissioner of Labor], 56 AD3d 877, 878 [2008] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Hill [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1123, 1124 [2008]). The employer’s representatives testified that claimant left work following a verbal altercation with a coworker—despite being warned, both previously and on the day in question, that if he walked off the job again he would be deemed to have quit. To the extent that claimant testified that he left because he feared for his personal safety, the record as a whole fails to demonstrate that claimant’s belief in this regard was reasonable (see Matter of Kingston [Commissioner of Labor], 4 AD3d 716, 717 [2004]). Moreover, claimant failed to communicate his concerns to the employer prior to leaving and, therefore, did not take reasonable steps to protect his employment (see Matter of Crawford [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2008]; Matter of Peak [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 779 [2004]). Finally, claimant’s contrary testimony as to the circumstances under which his employment ended presented a credibility determination for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Crandall-Mars [Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2008]).

Peters, J.P., Rose, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 1135, 878 N.Y.S.2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gagraj-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack