In re the Claim of Kremsky

32 A.D.3d 602, 819 N.Y.S.2d 350
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 3, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 602 (In re the Claim of Kremsky) 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 Kremsky, 32 A.D.3d 602, 819 N.Y.S.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 14, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for a data processing company as the vice-president of sales for nine years. She resigned in February 2005, telling her employer that she wished to pursue a business that she had started in July 2004 selling cheesecakes from her home. Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. She now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we note that resigning from a job to pursue another business endeavor does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Magliaro [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 705, 706 [1998]). Claimant represented to her employer that she was leaving her job to run her cheesecake business. However, she testified at the hearing that she said this only because of her pride, and that she truly resigned because she was being treated unfairly and the work environment was uncomfortable. Even if claimant’s testimony were accepted as true, general dissatisfaction with one’s work environment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Fradys [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 672, 673 [2003]). In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Lott v. Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2020
In re the Claim of Mkhitaryan
86 A.D.3d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 A.D.3d 602, 819 N.Y.S.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kremsky-nyappdiv-2006.