In re the Claim of Preus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Preus

252 A.D.2d 715, 675 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8168

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 715 (In re the Claim of Preus) 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 Preus, 252 A.D.2d 715, 675 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 14, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

When claimant was offered a management position at the employer’s manufacturing plant, he was advised that his compensation package would include a bonus program predicated upon the productivity and profitability of the plant. A short time later, the employer determined that it was unable to award bonuses because it had recently suffered a devastating financial loss. Once claimant learned that he would not be receiving a bonus, he continued working and attempted to convince the employer to reinstate the bonus program. Claimant’s efforts proved unsuccessful and he resigned approximately two months later because he developed negative feelings about his compensation package. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Dissatisfaction with one’s compensation does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Solano [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 845; Matter of Schipani [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 802). Claimant’s testimony that he was guaranteed to receive a bonus and that the employer unilaterally changed the terms of his employment was belied by the record and the Board was free to reject it. We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., 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 May 14, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

When claimant was offered a management position at the employer’s manufacturing plant, he was advised that his compensation package would include a bonus program predicated upon the productivity and profitability of the plant. A short time later, the employer determined that it was unable to award bonuses because it had recently suffered a devastating financial loss. Once claimant learned that he would not be receiving a bonus, he continued working and attempted to convince the employer to reinstate the bonus program. Claimant’s efforts proved unsuccessful and he resigned approximately two months later because he developed negative feelings about his compensation package. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Dissatisfaction with one’s compensation does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Solano [Sweeney], 234 AD2d 845; Matter of Schipani [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 802). Claimant’s testimony that he was guaranteed to receive a bonus and that the employer unilaterally changed the terms of his employment was belied by the record and the Board was free to reject it. We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 715, 675 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-preus-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack