In re the Claim of Seiglar

51 A.D.3d 1118, 858 N.Y.S.2d 409
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 1, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 1118 (In re the Claim of Seiglar) 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 Seiglar, 51 A.D.3d 1118, 858 N.Y.S.2d 409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 19, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as an administrative coordinator for a university without good cause. The record establishes that, at her performance evaluation in July 2005, claimant was warned about her excessive absenteeism and tardiness. Claimant’s tardiness and absenteeism did not improve and, as a result, in January 2006 she was notified that her employment would be terminated effective June 30, 2006. After claimant asked the employer to reconsider, the employer agreed to retain her but indicated that a final warning would be put into claimant’s record and any further tardiness would result in immediate dismissal. Claimant thereafter resigned, believing that she would eventually be fired. Inasmuch as a resignation in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, the Board’s decision that claimant left her employment under disqualifying circumstances will not be disturbed (see Matter of Ford [Commissioner of Labor], 2 AD3d 1132, 1133 [2003]; Matter of Santiago [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 674, 674 [2003]). Claimant’s testimony that she was fired presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Bradley [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 949, 949-950 [1993]).

[1119]*1119Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, 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 Franklin (Commr. of Labor)
141 A.D.3d 1067 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Welsh (Commr. of Labor)
138 A.D.3d 1328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Kanter (Commr. of Labor)
138 A.D.3d 1283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
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 Johnson
67 A.D.3d 1228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Goldberg
55 A.D.3d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 1118, 858 N.Y.S.2d 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-seiglar-nyappdiv-2008.