In re the Claim of Scirri

42 A.D.3d 806, 839 N.Y.S.2d 357
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 19, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 806 (In re the Claim of Scirri) 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 Scirri, 42 A.D.3d 806, 839 N.Y.S.2d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 2, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for the employer as an accounting clerk assistant for only five days. She became upset when the employer would not provide her with specific information regarding overtime and, consequently, she resigned from her position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that general dissatisfaction with working conditions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Behuniak [Commissioner of Labor], 29 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2006]; Matter of Enneddam [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 800, 801 [2005]). Here, the reasons cited by claimant for quitting her job included her employer’s failure to provide details concerning overtime, its failure to accommodate her request to obtain health insurance and its failure to provide adequate training. In addition, claimant was unhappy with the employer’s requirement that she use her personal vehicle to retrieve paychecks from the bank. Inasmuch as the foregoing constitute personal and noncompelling reasons for leaving employment, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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

In re the Claim of Mkhitaryan
86 A.D.3d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Klarfeld
57 A.D.3d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Goldberg
55 A.D.3d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Crawford
54 A.D.3d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 A.D.3d 806, 839 N.Y.S.2d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-scirri-nyappdiv-2007.