In re the Claim of Penigian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Penigian

4 A.D.3d 603, 770 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1076

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 A.D.3d 603 (In re the Claim of Penigian) 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 Penigian, 4 A.D.3d 603, 770 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as an under butler valet without good cause. The record establishes that claimant resigned from her employment because she claimed that the employer spoke to her in a harsh manner and she was unhappy with her task of retrieving the newspaper two mornings a week. It is well settled that failure to get along with one’s employer or coworkers who are perceived as unduly harsh or critical does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Micara [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 568, 569 [2003]; Matter of Cioffi [Commissioner of Labor], 297 AD2d 854, 854-855 [2002]), nor does dissatisfaction with one’s work assignment (see Matter of Chipman [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 652, 652 [2003]; Matter of Yap [Richard Wonder & Assoc.—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 831, 832 [1999]). [604]*604Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Feters, Lahtinen 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 January 31, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as an under butler valet without good cause. The record establishes that claimant resigned from her employment because she claimed that the employer spoke to her in a harsh manner and she was unhappy with her task of retrieving the newspaper two mornings a week. It is well settled that failure to get along with one’s employer or coworkers who are perceived as unduly harsh or critical does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Micara [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 568, 569 [2003]; Matter of Cioffi [Commissioner of Labor], 297 AD2d 854, 854-855 [2002]), nor does dissatisfaction with one’s work assignment (see Matter of Chipman [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 652, 652 [2003]; Matter of Yap [Richard Wonder & Assoc.—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 831, 832 [1999]). [604]*604Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Feters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 603, 770 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-penigian-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack