In re the Claim of Loria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Loria

254 A.D.2d 676, 679 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11501

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 676 (In re the Claim of Loria) 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 Loria, 254 A.D.2d 676, 679 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 12, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a part-time restaurant server. When the employer’s general manager suspected that claimant was engaging in a personal telephone call, he instructed her that the employer’s telephone was to be used for business and emergency purposes only. Claimant felt humiliated by the accusation and resigned from her employment. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Criticism by a supervisor has been held not to con[677]*677stitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, even where harsh words are used or the supervisor is perceived as unduly critical (see, Matter of Viruet [McKenzie, McGhee & Harper— Sweeney], 245 AD2d 707; Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, 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 January 12, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a part-time restaurant server. When the employer’s general manager suspected that claimant was engaging in a personal telephone call, he instructed her that the employer’s telephone was to be used for business and emergency purposes only. Claimant felt humiliated by the accusation and resigned from her employment. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Criticism by a supervisor has been held not to con[677]*677stitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, even where harsh words are used or the supervisor is perceived as unduly critical (see, Matter of Viruet [McKenzie, McGhee & Harper— Sweeney], 245 AD2d 707; Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 676, 679 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-loria-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack