In re the Claim of Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gordon

46 A.D.3d 1002, 846 N.Y.S.2d 806

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1002 (In re the Claim of Gordon) 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 Gordon, 46 A.D.3d 1002, 846 N.Y.S.2d 806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 6, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

For over two years, claimant worked for the Seneca Nation of Indians as a food service helper at its child learning center. In May 2006, she stopped working there and, on her application for unemployment insurance benefits, she represented that she left her job to pursue training. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Resigning from a position to attend school has been considered a personal and noncompelling reason for leaving employment disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Jing Ying Zeng [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 747 [2000]; Matter of Aussicker [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 930 [1998]). Inasmuch as the training that claimant sought to obtain here is analogous to an academic pursuit, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Although claimant testified that she was going to be terminated anyway due to a letter she received from the Office of Children and Family Services indicating that a report of child abuse or maltreatment had been filed against her, quitting a job in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Kabayiza [Commissioner of Labor], 22 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2005]). In any event, no evidence was presented that claimant’s discharge was imminent. Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 October 6, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

For over two years, claimant worked for the Seneca Nation of Indians as a food service helper at its child learning center. In May 2006, she stopped working there and, on her application for unemployment insurance benefits, she represented that she left her job to pursue training. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Resigning from a position to attend school has been considered a personal and noncompelling reason for leaving employment disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Jing Ying Zeng [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 747 [2000]; Matter of Aussicker [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 930 [1998]). Inasmuch as the training that claimant sought to obtain here is analogous to an academic pursuit, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Although claimant testified that she was going to be terminated anyway due to a letter she received from the Office of Children and Family Services indicating that a report of child abuse or maltreatment had been filed against her, quitting a job in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Kabayiza [Commissioner of Labor], 22 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2005]). In any event, no evidence was presented that claimant’s discharge was imminent. Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1002, 846 N.Y.S.2d 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gordon-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack