In re the Claim of Sibertzeff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sibertzeff

264 A.D.2d 936, 694 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 936 (In re the Claim of Sibertzeff) 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 Sibertzeff, 264 A.D.2d 936, 694 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 16, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant had voluntarily left his einployment without good cause, thereby disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant testified that he quit his job because he was allegedly overworked and underpaid. Prior to his resignation, he informed the employer he was overworked and requested a raise, which was denied. Although claimant also testified that he terminated his employment because he strained his back and had a hernia, he admitted that he never informed his employer of his specific medical condition. Furthermore, the physician’s note he submitted at the hearing excusing him from heavy lifting was written more than two months after his resignation. Notably, claimant also acknowledged that he would have remained in his job doing the same amount of work had he been given the requested raise. This Court has found in similar cases that dissatisfaction with one’s wages, compensation or workload does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Yaminian [Misicom, Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 678, lv denied 93 NY2d 801; Matter of Harris [CDS Mfg. — Sweeney], 243 AD2d 804). Given the proof in this case and the permissible inferences that can be drawn therefrom, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Carpinello, Graffeo 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 16, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant had voluntarily left his einployment without good cause, thereby disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant testified that he quit his job because he was allegedly overworked and underpaid. Prior to his resignation, he informed the employer he was overworked and requested a raise, which was denied. Although claimant also testified that he terminated his employment because he strained his back and had a hernia, he admitted that he never informed his employer of his specific medical condition. Furthermore, the physician’s note he submitted at the hearing excusing him from heavy lifting was written more than two months after his resignation. Notably, claimant also acknowledged that he would have remained in his job doing the same amount of work had he been given the requested raise. This Court has found in similar cases that dissatisfaction with one’s wages, compensation or workload does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Yaminian [Misicom, Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 678, lv denied 93 NY2d 801; Matter of Harris [CDS Mfg. — Sweeney], 243 AD2d 804). Given the proof in this case and the permissible inferences that can be drawn therefrom, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 936, 694 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sibertzeff-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack