In re the Claim of Kleparek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Kleparek

211 A.D.2d 935, 621 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 232

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 12, 1995·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 15, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant lacked good cause to quit her position as a part-time clerk for a Town Justice Court because of a decision not to convert her hourly wage position into a salaried one. The Board rationally found that no binding promises were made to claimant in this regard. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s disappointment over the situation , did not constitute a compelling reason to leave her employment. Claimant’s remaining arguments, including her assertion of due process violations, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 July 15, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Upon review of the record, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant lacked good cause to quit her position as a part-time clerk for a Town Justice Court because of a decision not to convert her hourly wage position into a salaried one. The Board rationally found that no binding promises were made to claimant in this regard. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s disappointment over the situation , did not constitute a compelling reason to leave her employment. Claimant’s remaining arguments, including her assertion of due process violations, have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Kleparek, 211 A.D.2d 935, 621 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 232 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

211 A.D.2d 935 (In re the Claim of Kleparek) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related