In re the Claim of Jenkins

10 A.D.3d 745, 781 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 745 (In re the Claim of Jenkins) 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 Jenkins, 10 A.D.3d 745, 781 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 24, 2003, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was dis[746]*746qualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was assigned by an employment agency to work at a law firm as a legal secretary. She had problems with a coworker at the law firm and asked to be moved to a different work area. Although she was moved, she still had some contact with the coworker. As a result, claimant resigned from her position and declined an offer of permanent employment. Her claim for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. She now appeals.

It is well settled that the failure to get along with a coworker does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Weaver [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 857, 858 [2004]; Matter of Mullen [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 936 [2003]). Claimant testified that she and the coworker continued to have conflicts even after she was moved and that this was the reason she left her job. This testimony provides substantial evidence supporting the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Yastrzemski
32 A.D.3d 1123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 A.D.3d 745, 781 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jenkins-nyappdiv-2004.