In re the Claim of Houghton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Houghton

167 A.D.2d 665, 563 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13588

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 665 (In re the Claim of Houghton) 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 Houghton, 167 A.D.2d 665, 563 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 24, 1988, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Although claimant contended that she was compelled to leave her job because she was assigned additional duties without extra pay and that she deserved a promotion and a raise, her supervisor testified that any additional work was assigned at claimant’s request, was within her job description and that no promotional positions were available at the time claimant left. Dissatisfaction with wages and promotional opportunities does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (Matter of Latona [Levine], 50 AD2d 957). Furthermore, the conclusion that the request to perform additional duties was not unreasonable is supported by the record (see, Matter of Tenenbaum [Catherwood], 18 AD2d 742). Accordingly, the determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause must be upheld (see, supra). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been addressed and found to be without merit.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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 August 24, 1988, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Although claimant contended that she was compelled to leave her job because she was assigned additional duties without extra pay and that she deserved a promotion and a raise, her supervisor testified that any additional work was assigned at claimant’s request, was within her job description and that no promotional positions were available at the time claimant left. Dissatisfaction with wages and promotional opportunities does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (Matter of Latona [Levine], 50 AD2d 957). Furthermore, the conclusion that the request to perform additional duties was not unreasonable is supported by the record (see, Matter of Tenenbaum [Catherwood], 18 AD2d 742). Accordingly, the determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause must be upheld (see, supra). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been addressed and found to be without merit.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 665, 563 N.Y.S.2d 247, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-houghton-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack