In re the Claim of Mannetta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mannetta

246 A.D.2d 699, 667 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 699 (In re the Claim of Mannetta) 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 Mannetta, 246 A.D.2d 699, 667 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 28, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned her employment as a manager-trainee for a cosmetic store after six weeks of employment due to her dissatisfaction with her job position and the long working hours and lengthy commute involved. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left her employment under disqualifying circumstances.

It is well settled that job dissatisfaction does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Macaluso [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1031). The record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that although claimant expressed to her employer that she preferred to work as a buyer, she never was promised such a position (see, e.g., Matter of Kleparek [Town of Newstead—Hudacs], 211 AD2d 935). Any conflict in the testimony regarding the representations made to claimant about the job presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Holt [Hartnett], 178 AD2d 863). Additionally, the record establishes that claimant was informed of the long working hours that were required and was aware of the length of her commute at the time she was hired (see, Matter of Ostrove [Commission of Juvenile Justice—Roberts], 107 AD2d 883, 884). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her assertion that concerns for her personal safety justified her decision to leave her employment, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 June 28, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned her employment as a manager-trainee for a cosmetic store after six weeks of employment due to her dissatisfaction with her job position and the long working hours and lengthy commute involved. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant voluntarily left her employment under disqualifying circumstances.

It is well settled that job dissatisfaction does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Macaluso [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1031). The record as a whole supports the Board’s finding that although claimant expressed to her employer that she preferred to work as a buyer, she never was promised such a position (see, e.g., Matter of Kleparek [Town of Newstead—Hudacs], 211 AD2d 935). Any conflict in the testimony regarding the representations made to claimant about the job presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Holt [Hartnett], 178 AD2d 863). Additionally, the record establishes that claimant was informed of the long working hours that were required and was aware of the length of her commute at the time she was hired (see, Matter of Ostrove [Commission of Juvenile Justice—Roberts], 107 AD2d 883, 884). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her assertion that concerns for her personal safety justified her decision to leave her employment, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 699, 667 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mannetta-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack