In re the Claim of Lonczynski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lonczynski

252 A.D.2d 645, 675 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8080

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 645 (In re the Claim of Lonczynski) 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 Lonczynski, 252 A.D.2d 645, 675 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 28, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disquali[646]*646fied from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a bank supervisor. When an eight-month-old unpaid invoice was found in claimant’s desk, claimant’s manager informed her that, although she would not be discharged, a written warning would be issued. Claimant became hysterical and resigned, despite her manager’s request to reconsider. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Criticism by a supervisor of an employee’s job performance has been found not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Ikoli [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 673; Matter of Krinsky [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 659). While claimant contends that she quit because work-related stress adversely affected her health, there is no indication that claimant was advised to leave her job due to her medical condition (see, Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 939).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 March 28, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disquali[646]*646fied from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a bank supervisor. When an eight-month-old unpaid invoice was found in claimant’s desk, claimant’s manager informed her that, although she would not be discharged, a written warning would be issued. Claimant became hysterical and resigned, despite her manager’s request to reconsider. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Criticism by a supervisor of an employee’s job performance has been found not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Ikoli [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 673; Matter of Krinsky [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 659). While claimant contends that she quit because work-related stress adversely affected her health, there is no indication that claimant was advised to leave her job due to her medical condition (see, Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 939).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 645, 675 N.Y.S.2d 206, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lonczynski-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack