In re the Claim of Orlik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Orlik

257 A.D.2d 837, 684 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 268

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 837 (In re the Claim of Orlik) 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 Orlik, 257 A.D.2d 837, 684 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 12, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was hired as an on-call phlebotomist required to work flexible shifts. During the course of her employment, claimant worked a varied schedule, including the 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift. After claimant was scheduled to work this shift from October 5, 1997 to October 9, 1997, she called the employer and stated that she could not work this schedule because it made her too tired and she could not properly handle her other jobs. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she left her employment without good cause. It is well settled that once the terms of employment have been agreed upon, such terms cannot thereafter be invoked as valid grounds for quitting (see, Matter of Cinque [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 912). Moreover, “dissatisfaction with the * * * hours assigned by one’s employer does not constitute good cause for resigning” (Matter of Cudnik [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 888). Finally, although claimant asserts that lack of sleep interfered with her health, there is no evidence that she received medical advice to leave her employment (see, Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 939, 940).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 May 12, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was hired as an on-call phlebotomist required to work flexible shifts. During the course of her employment, claimant worked a varied schedule, including the 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift. After claimant was scheduled to work this shift from October 5, 1997 to October 9, 1997, she called the employer and stated that she could not work this schedule because it made her too tired and she could not properly handle her other jobs. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she left her employment without good cause. It is well settled that once the terms of employment have been agreed upon, such terms cannot thereafter be invoked as valid grounds for quitting (see, Matter of Cinque [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 912). Moreover, “dissatisfaction with the * * * hours assigned by one’s employer does not constitute good cause for resigning” (Matter of Cudnik [Sweeney], 235 AD2d 888). Finally, although claimant asserts that lack of sleep interfered with her health, there is no evidence that she received medical advice to leave her employment (see, Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 939, 940).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 837, 684 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-orlik-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack