In re the Claim of Reiblein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Reiblein

13 A.D.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14708

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 712 (In re the Claim of Reiblein) 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 Reiblein, 13 A.D.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 7, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant voluntarily left his employment as a banquet manager without good cause. Claimant’s inability to work with his supervisor due to the supervisor’s critical and demanding attitude does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Fradys [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 672 [2003]; Matter of Pickard [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 696 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 615 [2002]; Matter of Alascia [Kuhr—Commissioner of Labor], 281 AD2d 739 [2001]). Although claimant testified that his supervisor’s daily intoxication jeopardized his own substance abuse recovery, claimant also admitted that he would have continued his employment if the supervisor’s demeanor had been more pleasant. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, 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 April 7, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant voluntarily left his employment as a banquet manager without good cause. Claimant’s inability to work with his supervisor due to the supervisor’s critical and demanding attitude does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Fradys [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 672 [2003]; Matter of Pickard [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 696 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 615 [2002]; Matter of Alascia [Kuhr—Commissioner of Labor], 281 AD2d 739 [2001]). Although claimant testified that his supervisor’s daily intoxication jeopardized his own substance abuse recovery, claimant also admitted that he would have continued his employment if the supervisor’s demeanor had been more pleasant. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 712, 785 N.Y.S.2d 587, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-reiblein-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack