In re the Claim of Halas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Halas

296 A.D.2d 703, 746 N.Y.S.2d 71, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7342

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 296 A.D.2d 703 (In re the Claim of Halas) 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 Halas, 296 A.D.2d 703, 746 N.Y.S.2d 71, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 13, 2001, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, a porter and concierge at a hotel, was asked by an employee of one of the hotel’s tenants to assist her in picking up a mail bin. When claimant responded that he worked on tips, the employee complained to claimant’s supervisor. The supervisor, in turn, requested claimant to attend a meeting regarding the incident and informed him at the meeting that [704]*704he would be contacted following the completion of an investigation. When claimant failed to hear from the hotel after two days, he resigned from his position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground, inter alia, that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

We affirm. It is well settled that leaving work in anticipation of being discharged does not constitute good cause entitling a claimant to unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Prusch [Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 877, 878, lv denied 93 NY2d 816; Matter of Chatterton [Enesco Imports—Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 978, 978; Matter of Shabbir [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 820). Here, claimant admitted that he left his job before the hotel had completed its investigation and did so to avoid being terminated. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Rose, 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 13, 2001, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant, a porter and concierge at a hotel, was asked by an employee of one of the hotel’s tenants to assist her in picking up a mail bin. When claimant responded that he worked on tips, the employee complained to claimant’s supervisor. The supervisor, in turn, requested claimant to attend a meeting regarding the incident and informed him at the meeting that [704]*704he would be contacted following the completion of an investigation. When claimant failed to hear from the hotel after two days, he resigned from his position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground, inter alia, that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

We affirm. It is well settled that leaving work in anticipation of being discharged does not constitute good cause entitling a claimant to unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Prusch [Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 877, 878, lv denied 93 NY2d 816; Matter of Chatterton [Enesco Imports—Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 978, 978; Matter of Shabbir [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 820). Here, claimant admitted that he left his job before the hotel had completed its investigation and did so to avoid being terminated. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 703, 746 N.Y.S.2d 71, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-halas-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack