In re the Claim of Odock

254 A.D.2d 551, 678 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10895
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 15, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 551 (In re the Claim of Odock) 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 Odock, 254 A.D.2d 551, 678 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 26, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

On February 26, 1997, claimant, a resource advocate employed by a service for the disabled, walked off the job when her supervisor failed to take her side in a disagreement with a co-worker. Claimant did not report to work in the ensuing days but requested and received medical leave through March 3, 1997. Prior to that date, claimant’s supervisor instructed her not to return to work until she spoke with the executive director upon his return from vacation on March 10, 1997. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits on March 4, 1997 and never contacted the executive director. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Neither dissatisfaction with one’s supervisor (see, Matter of Shenker [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 642) nor conflicts with co-workers (see, Matter of Elkan-Moore [Hudacs], 191 AD2d 914) constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment. Claimant’s assertion that she did not resign but was fired created a credibility issue for the Board’s resolution (see, Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752). We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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

In re the Claim of Canty
49 A.D.3d 943 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Hayes
296 A.D.2d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Otto
290 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of El Nachef
288 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Eveland
271 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Saglimbeni
264 A.D.2d 933 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of McCaffery
264 A.D.2d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 551, 678 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-odock-nyappdiv-1998.