In re the Claim of Maine

282 A.D.2d 854, 723 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3667
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 12, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 854 (In re the Claim of Maine) 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 Maine, 282 A.D.2d 854, 723 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 14, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

[855]*855Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment as a clerk with the State Insurance Fund without good cause. Claimant testified that he resigned from his clerk position because of work-related stress caused by an increased work load due to a reduction in staff. Nevertheless, claimant did not inform his supervisor of the problems he was experiencing and he received no medical advice to quit his job. It has been held that dissatisfaction with one’s employment, including assertions of being overworked, does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Costello [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 845; Matter of Sibertzeff [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 936).

Furthermore, claimant’s earnings from his subsequent two-week employment with EAB Personnel Services were insufficient to break the disqualification caused by his voluntary separation from employment with the State Insurance Fund (see, Labor Law § 593 [1] [a]).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Matter of Peichun Huang (Commissioner of Labor)
2017 NY Slip Op 7923 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
In re the Claim of Viohl
32 A.D.3d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Romano
30 A.D.3d 953 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Turner
16 A.D.3d 885 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Rose
6 A.D.3d 951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Dangler
306 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Rainville
288 A.D.2d 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Soto
284 A.D.2d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 A.D.2d 854, 723 N.Y.S.2d 541, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-maine-nyappdiv-2001.