In re the Claim of Jaworski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jaworski

249 A.D.2d 869, 672 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 869 (In re the Claim of Jaworski) 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 Jaworski, 249 A.D.2d 869, 672 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 12, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed by the General Electric Company for 31 years. Anticipating that more layoffs would occur in his department, claimant resigned, accepting the employer’s offer of an early retirement incentive package. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because, inter alia, he had left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. It has been held that participating in an early retirement incentive program when there is continuing work available does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944; Matter of Reid [Delta Air Lines — Sweeney], 244 AD2d 675). Although the workforce in claimant’s department had been reduced from 19 employees to 4 employees in the last year, claimant himself was never informed that his job was in jeopardy. Moreover, of the four employees remaining within claimant’s job classification, claimant had the most seniority and, therefore, could bump his coworkers if placed in other job titles after the layoff. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claim[870]*870ant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances, its decision is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, 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 February 12, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed by the General Electric Company for 31 years. Anticipating that more layoffs would occur in his department, claimant resigned, accepting the employer’s offer of an early retirement incentive package. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because, inter alia, he had left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. It has been held that participating in an early retirement incentive program when there is continuing work available does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Joseph [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 944; Matter of Reid [Delta Air Lines — Sweeney], 244 AD2d 675). Although the workforce in claimant’s department had been reduced from 19 employees to 4 employees in the last year, claimant himself was never informed that his job was in jeopardy. Moreover, of the four employees remaining within claimant’s job classification, claimant had the most seniority and, therefore, could bump his coworkers if placed in other job titles after the layoff. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claim[870]*870ant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances, its decision is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 869, 672 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jaworski-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack