In re the Claim of King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of King

243 A.D.2d 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9716

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 802 (In re the Claim of King) 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 King, 243 A.D.2d 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 1996, 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 on a seasonal basis as a groundskeeper. After several months, the employer offered claimant permanent employment, including an increased hourly pay rate, health insurance and other benefits, but with a reduced work schedule of five fewer hours per week. Claimant declined the offer and resigned because the new position would have resulted in a weekly decrease in pay of $16.25. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left his employment without good cause and charged him with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm. It has been held that a claimant’s dissatisfaction with a position’s hours or wages does not constitute good cause for resigning (see, Matter of Solano [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 845). Claimant’s contention that he did not resign but was fired raised a question of credibility for res[803]*803olution by the Board (see, Matter of Cattan [French & Eur. Pubis.—Hudacs], 187 AD2d 858).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, 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 June 13, 1996, 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 on a seasonal basis as a groundskeeper. After several months, the employer offered claimant permanent employment, including an increased hourly pay rate, health insurance and other benefits, but with a reduced work schedule of five fewer hours per week. Claimant declined the offer and resigned because the new position would have resulted in a weekly decrease in pay of $16.25. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had left his employment without good cause and charged him with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm. It has been held that a claimant’s dissatisfaction with a position’s hours or wages does not constitute good cause for resigning (see, Matter of Solano [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 845). Claimant’s contention that he did not resign but was fired raised a question of credibility for res[803]*803olution by the Board (see, Matter of Cattan [French & Eur. Pubis.—Hudacs], 187 AD2d 858).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 802, 665 N.Y.S.2d 348, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-king-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack