In re the Claim of Koller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Koller

288 A.D.2d 599, 732 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10349

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

DecidedNovember 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 599 (In re the Claim of Koller) 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 Koller, 288 A.D.2d 599, 732 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 26, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant challenges a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that she voluntarily left her employment as a temporary secretary without good cause. The record establishes that claimant informed the employer that she was resigning because she disliked the nature of her employment and wanted to travel with her husband. Neither dissatisfaction with one’s employment responsibilities (see, Matter of Parmeter [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 552, 553, lv denied 95 NY2d 756; Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 939, 940) nor a desire to travel (see, Matter of Gervits [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 749; Matter of Bodetti [Levine], 50 AD2d 682) has been held to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment. Claimant’s testimony that she planned to travel only on weekends created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Reifer [D’Angelo — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 949). Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she resigned from her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons.

Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s imposition of a recoverable overpayment of benefits since claimant cited “lack of work” on her application for unemployment insurance benefits despite the fact that continuing work was available (see, Matter of James [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 888; Matter of Zipes [Town of Wappinger — Commissioner of Labor], 274 AD2d 819).

Cardona P. J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 26, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant challenges a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that she voluntarily left her employment as a temporary secretary without good cause. The record establishes that claimant informed the employer that she was resigning because she disliked the nature of her employment and wanted to travel with her husband. Neither dissatisfaction with one’s employment responsibilities (see, Matter of Parmeter [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 552, 553, lv denied 95 NY2d 756; Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 939, 940) nor a desire to travel (see, Matter of Gervits [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 749; Matter of Bodetti [Levine], 50 AD2d 682) has been held to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment. Claimant’s testimony that she planned to travel only on weekends created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Reifer [D’Angelo — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 949). Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she resigned from her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons.

Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s imposition of a recoverable overpayment of benefits since claimant cited “lack of work” on her application for unemployment insurance benefits despite the fact that continuing work was available (see, Matter of James [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 888; Matter of Zipes [Town of Wappinger — Commissioner of Labor], 274 AD2d 819).

Cardona P. J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 599, 732 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-koller-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack