In re the Claim of Santiago

308 A.D.2d 674, 764 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9773
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 25, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 674 (In re the Claim of Santiago) 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 Santiago, 308 A.D.2d 674, 764 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 28, 2002, 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 that claimant left his employment as a billing secretary for a law firm without good cause. The record establishes that claimant received a poor performance evaluation and was informed that if his work did not improve within 30 days he would be discharged. Claimant quit, asserting that he was constructively discharged given that the evaluation was unjustified and there was an anticipation of layoffs within the firm. It is well settled that neither criticism from a supervisor regarding a claimant’s job performance (see Matter of Soto [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 908, 908 [1999]) nor quitting in anticipation of discharge (see Matter of Rugelis [Sweeney], 248 AD2d 784, 784 [1998]) constitutes good cause for leaving employment. Inasmuch as continuing work was available to claimant, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin 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

Related

Matter of Colon (Staffing Solutions Org. LLC--Commissioner of Labor)
2020 NY Slip Op 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
In re the Claim of Zerrillo
91 A.D.3d 1011 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re the Claim of Follett
87 A.D.3d 1233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Hull
77 A.D.3d 1012 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Claim of Seiglar
51 A.D.3d 1118 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Kabayiza
22 A.D.3d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Hobson-Williams
10 A.D.3d 749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Zevallos
9 A.D.3d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Paul-Marseille
8 A.D.3d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of De Souza
8 A.D.3d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 A.D.2d 674, 764 N.Y.S.2d 659, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-santiago-nyappdiv-2003.