In re the Claim of Perkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Perkins

301 A.D.2d 1004, 753 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 1004 (In re the Claim of Perkins) 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 Perkins, 301 A.D.2d 1004, 753 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 24, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

[1005]*1005Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment as an assistant engineer without good cause. According to statements made to the Department of Labor, claimant indicated that he was dissatisfied with his employment because he was stagnating due to the lack of training needed to obtain certification in his field. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with general working conditions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Ruballo [Commissioner of Labor], 286 AD2d 817; Matter of Murray [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 649). Although claimant testified that he resigned because his job performance had been unsatisfactory and he anticipated that he would be discharged, this too does not constitute good cause within the meaning of the Labor Law (see Matter of Prusch [Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 877, lv denied 93 NY2d 816).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 24, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

[1005]*1005Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment as an assistant engineer without good cause. According to statements made to the Department of Labor, claimant indicated that he was dissatisfied with his employment because he was stagnating due to the lack of training needed to obtain certification in his field. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with general working conditions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Ruballo [Commissioner of Labor], 286 AD2d 817; Matter of Murray [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 649). Although claimant testified that he resigned because his job performance had been unsatisfactory and he anticipated that he would be discharged, this too does not constitute good cause within the meaning of the Labor Law (see Matter of Prusch [Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 877, lv denied 93 NY2d 816).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 1004, 753 N.Y.S.2d 410, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-perkins-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack