In re the Claim of Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Goldstein

183 A.D.2d 1088, 583 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7358

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

DecidedMay 21, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A.D.2d 1088 (In re the Claim of Goldstein) 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 Goldstein, 183 A.D.2d 1088, 583 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 3, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that the reduction in claimant’s allotted time for lunch from one hour to 45 minutes was not a substantial change in the terms of her employment, and that she therefore left her employment without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Famulare [Catherwood], 34 AD2d 705; see also, Matter of Weiss [Catherwood], 26 AD2d 851; Matter of Sybell [Catherwood], 14 AD2d 981). The change in circumstances was not one which would have justified claimant’s refusing the job in the first instance (see, Matter of Lubin [Catherwood], 34 AD2d 591). Although claimant also contended that she quit because there was an "uncomfortable distance” between her and another secretary in her unit, failure to get along with a co-worker constitutes a personal and noncompelling reason for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Simon [Catherwood], 26 AD2d 979).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, 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 December 3, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that the reduction in claimant’s allotted time for lunch from one hour to 45 minutes was not a substantial change in the terms of her employment, and that she therefore left her employment without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Famulare [Catherwood], 34 AD2d 705; see also, Matter of Weiss [Catherwood], 26 AD2d 851; Matter of Sybell [Catherwood], 14 AD2d 981). The change in circumstances was not one which would have justified claimant’s refusing the job in the first instance (see, Matter of Lubin [Catherwood], 34 AD2d 591). Although claimant also contended that she quit because there was an "uncomfortable distance” between her and another secretary in her unit, failure to get along with a co-worker constitutes a personal and noncompelling reason for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Simon [Catherwood], 26 AD2d 979).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 1088, 583 N.Y.S.2d 857, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-goldstein-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack