In re the Claim of Paino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Paino

27 A.D.3d 820, 809 N.Y.S.2d 692

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 820 (In re the Claim of Paino) 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 Paino, 27 A.D.3d 820, 809 N.Y.S.2d 692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 26, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as a sales manager for a science supply company from June 1998 until October 2004. He resigned from his position because the nature of his job had changed from a focus on teaching and training to sales. After he left his position, he applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that he was disqualified from receiving them because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. We note that dissatisfaction with a work assignment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Cherry [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 937, 938 [2005]; Matter of Florio [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]). Claimant stated that the very reason he left [821]*821was because his job had dramatically changed, requiring him to become an aggressive salesperson when previously the emphasis was on education and training. While he stated that he thought his supervisors were dissatisfied with his performance based upon evaluations he had received, he was not told that his job was in jeopardy or that he would be discharged. Even if claimant believed his termination was imminent, resigning in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Lokensky [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 973, 974 [2005]; Matter of Hobson-Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 749, 750 [2004]). Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 July 26, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as a sales manager for a science supply company from June 1998 until October 2004. He resigned from his position because the nature of his job had changed from a focus on teaching and training to sales. After he left his position, he applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that he was disqualified from receiving them because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. We note that dissatisfaction with a work assignment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Cherry [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 937, 938 [2005]; Matter of Florio [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 776, 777 [2004]). Claimant stated that the very reason he left [821]*821was because his job had dramatically changed, requiring him to become an aggressive salesperson when previously the emphasis was on education and training. While he stated that he thought his supervisors were dissatisfied with his performance based upon evaluations he had received, he was not told that his job was in jeopardy or that he would be discharged. Even if claimant believed his termination was imminent, resigning in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Lokensky [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 973, 974 [2005]; Matter of Hobson-Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 749, 750 [2004]). Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 820, 809 N.Y.S.2d 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-paino-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack