In re the Claim of Schipani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Schipani

232 A.D.2d 802, 649 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 802 (In re the Claim of Schipani) 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 Schipani, 232 A.D.2d 802, 649 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 4, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that a combination of factors caused her to quit her job as manager /stylist of a beauty salon, including shortage of staff, her employer’s decision not to give managers such as herself a bonus and being overlooked for a promotional opportunity. Neither general dissatisfaction with job conditions (see, Matter of Wigutow [Roberts], 138 AD2d 817) nor displeasure with promotional opportunities (see, Matter of Bermudez [Hudacs], 183 AD2d 1088) suffices as a valid excuse to terminate employment and collect unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant’s complaints constitute nothing more than these types of dissatisfaction, thereby establishing substantial evidence for the Board’s decision finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, 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 January 4, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant testified that a combination of factors caused her to quit her job as manager /stylist of a beauty salon, including shortage of staff, her employer’s decision not to give managers such as herself a bonus and being overlooked for a promotional opportunity. Neither general dissatisfaction with job conditions (see, Matter of Wigutow [Roberts], 138 AD2d 817) nor displeasure with promotional opportunities (see, Matter of Bermudez [Hudacs], 183 AD2d 1088) suffices as a valid excuse to terminate employment and collect unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant’s complaints constitute nothing more than these types of dissatisfaction, thereby establishing substantial evidence for the Board’s decision finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 802, 649 N.Y.S.2d 344, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-schipani-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack