In re the Claim of Krinsky

238 A.D.2d 659, 655 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 3, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 659 (In re the Claim of Krinsky) 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 Krinsky, 238 A.D.2d 659, 655 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 21, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant, a head bank teller, became an employee of Astoria Federal Savings Bank after claimant’s former employer and Astoria Bank (hereinafter the employer) merged. Approximately two weeks after the merger, claimant’s employer placed her on probation for three months due to various incidents of insubordination and unprofessional leadership style. Claimant, feeling that she was being harassed and fearing termination, informed her employer that she was resigning.

It is well settled that neither a supervisor’s criticism of an employee’s work product (see, Matter of Mielewski [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 805) nor quitting in anticipation of discharge (see, Matter of Chick [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 812) constitutes good cause for leaving employment. Additionally, claimant’s contention that her medical condition caused her to leave her employment is without merit inasmuch as claimant’s physician never advised her to resign from her position (see, Matter of Cooper [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 678). We find that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, 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

In re the Claim of Emeterio
1 A.D.2d 869 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Klein
304 A.D.2d 897 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Grayson
288 A.D.2d 599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Lonczynski
252 A.D.2d 645 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Ikoli
249 A.D.2d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Caruso
248 A.D.2d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Robinson
245 A.D.2d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Shabbir
242 A.D.2d 820 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Wolfenburg
242 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Harpule
241 A.D.2d 610 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 A.D.2d 659, 655 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-krinsky-nyappdiv-1997.