In re the Claim of Greenspan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Greenspan

284 A.D.2d 715, 726 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244

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

DecidedJune 14, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 715 (In re the Claim of Greenspan) 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 Greenspan, 284 A.D.2d 715, 726 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 12, 2000, which denied claimant’s application to reopen a previous decision of the Board.

Claimant was employed as a salesperson by the employer until he resigned after seven days. The record reveals that claimant initially received computer training when he commenced working for the employer, but requested and was given additional training when he was not satisfied with his level of proficiency. Claimant then resigned, stating that he felt he was not qualified for the position inasmuch as he is not computer literate. He made no effort to give the employer an opportunity to rectify the situation (see, Matter of Schell [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1007; see also, Matter of Caldarone [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 562). Under the circumstances, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons, [716]*716and therefore without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence (see, id.; see also, Matter of Aronson [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1046).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, 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 April 12, 2000, which denied claimant’s application to reopen a previous decision of the Board.

Claimant was employed as a salesperson by the employer until he resigned after seven days. The record reveals that claimant initially received computer training when he commenced working for the employer, but requested and was given additional training when he was not satisfied with his level of proficiency. Claimant then resigned, stating that he felt he was not qualified for the position inasmuch as he is not computer literate. He made no effort to give the employer an opportunity to rectify the situation (see, Matter of Schell [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1007; see also, Matter of Caldarone [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 562). Under the circumstances, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons, [716]*716and therefore without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence (see, id.; see also, Matter of Aronson [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1046).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 715, 726 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-greenspan-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack