In re the Claim of Malkenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Malkenson

246 A.D.2d 733, 667 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 733 (In re the Claim of Malkenson) 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 Malkenson, 246 A.D.2d 733, 667 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as the office manager of a dental practice, working Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. When it was decided that the office would be closed on Saturdays, claimant was asked to change his schedule so that he would be working a standard Monday through Friday work week. Claimant refused to work Wednesdays and upon being told that his salary would be decreased to reflect a four-[734]*734day work week, claimant resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. This Court has held that an employee’s dissatisfaction with his or her work schedule (see, Matter of Partlow [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 846; Matter of De Angelis [Hudacs], 199 AD2d 739, 740) or wages (see, Matter of King [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 802) does not constitute good cause for resigning. Therefore, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as the office manager of a dental practice, working Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. When it was decided that the office would be closed on Saturdays, claimant was asked to change his schedule so that he would be working a standard Monday through Friday work week. Claimant refused to work Wednesdays and upon being told that his salary would be decreased to reflect a four-[734]*734day work week, claimant resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. This Court has held that an employee’s dissatisfaction with his or her work schedule (see, Matter of Partlow [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 846; Matter of De Angelis [Hudacs], 199 AD2d 739, 740) or wages (see, Matter of King [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 802) does not constitute good cause for resigning. Therefore, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 733, 667 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-malkenson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack