In re the Claim of Peak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Peak

9 A.D.3d 779, 779 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899

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

DecidedJuly 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 779 (In re the Claim of Peak) 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 Peak, 9 A.D.3d 779, 779 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 6, 2003, 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 ruling that claimant voluntarily left his employment as a salesperson without good cause. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one’s work load (see Matter of Rainville [Univera Healthcare CNY—Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 747 [2001]) or work hours (see Matter of Chereshnev [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 804, 805 [2002]) does not constitute good cause for leaving employment. Here, claimant testified that two months after the company was sold to a new employer, he quit his job because of the increase in his work load and hours. Inasmuch as the record establishes that claimant failed to bring his concerns to the employer’s attention prior to quitting (see id.; Matter of Parmeter [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 552 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 756 [2000]), and having reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin 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 6, 2003, 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 ruling that claimant voluntarily left his employment as a salesperson without good cause. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one’s work load (see Matter of Rainville [Univera Healthcare CNY—Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 747 [2001]) or work hours (see Matter of Chereshnev [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 804, 805 [2002]) does not constitute good cause for leaving employment. Here, claimant testified that two months after the company was sold to a new employer, he quit his job because of the increase in his work load and hours. Inasmuch as the record establishes that claimant failed to bring his concerns to the employer’s attention prior to quitting (see id.; Matter of Parmeter [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 552 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 756 [2000]), and having reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 779, 779 N.Y.S.2d 870, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-peak-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack