In re the Claim of Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Murray

244 A.D.2d 649, 663 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11140

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 649 (In re the Claim of Murray) 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 Murray, 244 A.D.2d 649, 663 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a retail sales clerk until she resigned after approximately seven days on the job. In her subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant stated that she had left her employment because of the insufficiency of her training and the lack of communication [650]*650with her supervisor together with the unfriendly atmosphere that prevailed in the workplace. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s reasons for resigning were personal and noncompelling in nature, thereby disqualifying her from receiving benefits. We affirm. An employee’s dissatisfaction with a supervisor or with the general working conditions of his or her employment has been found not to constitute good cause for resigning (see, Matter of Trainor [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 871). Claimant’s later contention that she did not quit but was fired raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Bradley [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 949, 950).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 October 18, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a retail sales clerk until she resigned after approximately seven days on the job. In her subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant stated that she had left her employment because of the insufficiency of her training and the lack of communication [650]*650with her supervisor together with the unfriendly atmosphere that prevailed in the workplace. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s reasons for resigning were personal and noncompelling in nature, thereby disqualifying her from receiving benefits. We affirm. An employee’s dissatisfaction with a supervisor or with the general working conditions of his or her employment has been found not to constitute good cause for resigning (see, Matter of Trainor [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 871). Claimant’s later contention that she did not quit but was fired raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Bradley [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 949, 950).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 649, 663 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-murray-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack