In re the Claim of Rosenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rosenberg

170 A.D.2d 872, 566 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 872 (In re the Claim of Rosenberg) 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 Rosenberg, 170 A.D.2d 872, 566 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 17, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Upon being advised that she was being transferred from her job as a human resources manager at one of the employer’s smaller hotels in Westchester County to become a benefits manager at a larger hotel in New York City, claimant declined to accept the position. The record reveals that, although the new job was a longer commute and claimant was no longer the sole person in charge of a department, she was offered a salary increase. This not only indicates that the transfer was not a demotion, but the increased salary would offset her additional commuting expenses. The record also indicates that claimant requested to be moved to California but no job was available there. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons, and therefore without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Comerato [Marine Midland Bank-Eastern Natl. Assn.— Levine], 52 AD2d 965, 966; Matter of Day [Levine], 51 AD2d 1071; see also, Matter of Weitzman [Levine], 51 AD2d 822).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Crew III, 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 November 17, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Upon being advised that she was being transferred from her job as a human resources manager at one of the employer’s smaller hotels in Westchester County to become a benefits manager at a larger hotel in New York City, claimant declined to accept the position. The record reveals that, although the new job was a longer commute and claimant was no longer the sole person in charge of a department, she was offered a salary increase. This not only indicates that the transfer was not a demotion, but the increased salary would offset her additional commuting expenses. The record also indicates that claimant requested to be moved to California but no job was available there. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons, and therefore without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Comerato [Marine Midland Bank-Eastern Natl. Assn.— Levine], 52 AD2d 965, 966; Matter of Day [Levine], 51 AD2d 1071; see also, Matter of Weitzman [Levine], 51 AD2d 822).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 872, 566 N.Y.S.2d 697, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rosenberg-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack