In re the Claim of Pickard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pickard

296 A.D.2d 696, 745 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7341

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

DecidedJuly 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 696 (In re the Claim of Pickard) 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 Pickard, 296 A.D.2d 696, 745 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Rose, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 23, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The record discloses that soon after the beginning of her work day, claimant went home without permission because she was upset by what she considered to be her employer’s unduly harsh criticism of her during a heated exchange over a work-related matter. She then telephoned the employer from her home to advise that she would not return to work that day. When the employer demanded to know her access code to the office telephone system so that customers’ voice mail messages could be retrieved in her absence, claimant equated this request with a demand for her resignation. Although the employer did not agree with her interpretation of the request, claimant resigned anyway, offering to work an additional two weeks to allow the employer time to find a replacement. The employer declined the offer of two weeks’ notice and accepted claimant’s resignation, effective immediately.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances. Criticism by a supervisor has been held not to constitute good cause for resigning, even in cases where the criticism is considered by the claimant to be unfair or unduly harsh (see, Matter of Alascia [Kuhr—Commissioner of Labor], 281 AD2d 739; Matter of Loria [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 676, 677). Any disparity between the parties’ representations presented an is[697]*697sue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752, 753). The remaining contentions raised herein have been examined and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Lahtinen, 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

Rose, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 23, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The record discloses that soon after the beginning of her work day, claimant went home without permission because she was upset by what she considered to be her employer’s unduly harsh criticism of her during a heated exchange over a work-related matter. She then telephoned the employer from her home to advise that she would not return to work that day. When the employer demanded to know her access code to the office telephone system so that customers’ voice mail messages could be retrieved in her absence, claimant equated this request with a demand for her resignation. Although the employer did not agree with her interpretation of the request, claimant resigned anyway, offering to work an additional two weeks to allow the employer time to find a replacement. The employer declined the offer of two weeks’ notice and accepted claimant’s resignation, effective immediately.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances. Criticism by a supervisor has been held not to constitute good cause for resigning, even in cases where the criticism is considered by the claimant to be unfair or unduly harsh (see, Matter of Alascia [Kuhr—Commissioner of Labor], 281 AD2d 739; Matter of Loria [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 676, 677). Any disparity between the parties’ representations presented an is[697]*697sue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 752, 753). The remaining contentions raised herein have been examined and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 A.D.2d 696, 745 N.Y.S.2d 244, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pickard-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack