In re the Claim of Knight

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Knight

50 A.D.3d 1364, 855 N.Y.S.2d 313

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

DecidedApril 17, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1364 (In re the Claim of Knight) 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 Knight, 50 A.D.3d 1364, 855 N.Y.S.2d 313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 30, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a security guard and was required to stand for eight hours at a time. After experiencing pain in his feet, claimant sought medical treatment and was advised to take periodic breaks during his shifts. The employer was unwilling to accommodate him, however, and claimant indicated that he would have to quit but agreed to remain on the job for at least one week so that a replacement could be hired. Less than one week later, claimant quit after receiving a written warning for allegedly inappropriate behavior. Inasmuch as criticism or disciplinary action does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Zevallos [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]; Matter of Lonczynski [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 645, 646 [1998]). Although claimant testified that he did not quit in response to the warning but, rather, because the employer would not accommodate his need to rest his feet, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Gerard [YWCA Assn. of Dutchess County—Commissioner of Labor], 11 AD3d 871, 872 [2004]). Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, 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 January 30, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a security guard and was required to stand for eight hours at a time. After experiencing pain in his feet, claimant sought medical treatment and was advised to take periodic breaks during his shifts. The employer was unwilling to accommodate him, however, and claimant indicated that he would have to quit but agreed to remain on the job for at least one week so that a replacement could be hired. Less than one week later, claimant quit after receiving a written warning for allegedly inappropriate behavior. Inasmuch as criticism or disciplinary action does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Zevallos [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]; Matter of Lonczynski [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 645, 646 [1998]). Although claimant testified that he did not quit in response to the warning but, rather, because the employer would not accommodate his need to rest his feet, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Gerard [YWCA Assn. of Dutchess County—Commissioner of Labor], 11 AD3d 871, 872 [2004]). Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1364, 855 N.Y.S.2d 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-knight-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack