In re the Claim of Marcheschi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Marcheschi

306 A.D.2d 613, 759 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6339

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

DecidedJune 5, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 613 (In re the Claim of Marcheschi) 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 Marcheschi, 306 A.D.2d 613, 759 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 19, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntar[614]*614ily left his employment as a security guard without good cause. The record establishes that at the time claimant was hired, he indicated that he preferred to work 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no overtime in order to search for work as a commercial pilot. Claimant quit after the employer repeatedly asked him to work additional hours. Absent a compelling reason, an employee’s preference for particular hours does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see Matter of De Angelis [Sweeney], 199 AD2d 739 [1993]). Although claimant testified that the additional hours interfered with his efforts to find a job as an airline pilot, quitting in order to pursue other job opportunities has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Covello [Hepco Tours — Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 646 [1998]; Matter of Gadamowitz [Sweeney], 213 AD2d 912 [1995]). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his claim of bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 19, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntar[614]*614ily left his employment as a security guard without good cause. The record establishes that at the time claimant was hired, he indicated that he preferred to work 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no overtime in order to search for work as a commercial pilot. Claimant quit after the employer repeatedly asked him to work additional hours. Absent a compelling reason, an employee’s preference for particular hours does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see Matter of De Angelis [Sweeney], 199 AD2d 739 [1993]). Although claimant testified that the additional hours interfered with his efforts to find a job as an airline pilot, quitting in order to pursue other job opportunities has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Covello [Hepco Tours — Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 646 [1998]; Matter of Gadamowitz [Sweeney], 213 AD2d 912 [1995]). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his claim of bias, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 613, 759 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-marcheschi-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack