In re the Claim of Ratto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ratto

166 A.D.2d 864, 562 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12820

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 864 (In re the Claim of Ratto) 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 Ratto, 166 A.D.2d 864, 562 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 28, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant left her employment because she believed that she would be terminated shortly and she felt that her work was being criticized by her employer, all of which she claimed caused her stress. Neither criticism of an employee’s work (see, Matter of Hogan [Schenectady Discount Corp.—Levine], 50 AD2d 650; see also, Matter of Lenner [Levine], 50 AD2d 702) nor leaving in anticipation of being discharged in the future (see, Matter of Manson [Hartford Acc. & Indem. Group—Levine], 50 AD2d 980) constitutes good cause for leaving one’s employment. Here, there is no clear evidence that claimant was ever harassed or criticized nor was she ever told that she was about to be fired. Under the circumstances, the decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 AD2d 166, 167).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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 December 28, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant left her employment because she believed that she would be terminated shortly and she felt that her work was being criticized by her employer, all of which she claimed caused her stress. Neither criticism of an employee’s work (see, Matter of Hogan [Schenectady Discount Corp.—Levine], 50 AD2d 650; see also, Matter of Lenner [Levine], 50 AD2d 702) nor leaving in anticipation of being discharged in the future (see, Matter of Manson [Hartford Acc. & Indem. Group—Levine], 50 AD2d 980) constitutes good cause for leaving one’s employment. Here, there is no clear evidence that claimant was ever harassed or criticized nor was she ever told that she was about to be fired. Under the circumstances, the decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 AD2d 166, 167).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 864, 562 N.Y.S.2d 836, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ratto-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack