In re the Claim of Stoddard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Stoddard

242 A.D.2d 817, 661 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8681

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 817 (In re the Claim of Stoddard) 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 Stoddard, 242 A.D.2d 817, 661 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 31, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because they voluntarily left their employment without good cause.

Claimants resigned their employment as retail managers when their hours and salaries were reduced, due to lack of work, from three days per week at $175 per day to two days per week at $135 per day. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimants left their employment under disqualifying circumstances. Dissatisfaction with wages does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Retzlaff [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 943). This includes situations where a claimant’s wages have been reduced due to a reduction in work hours (see, Matter of Orenstein [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1029). Moreover, claimants cannot now argue that the changes in the terms of their employment justified their resignations since they accepted the changes for eight months (see, Matter of Frankel [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 773).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 31, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because they voluntarily left their employment without good cause.

Claimants resigned their employment as retail managers when their hours and salaries were reduced, due to lack of work, from three days per week at $175 per day to two days per week at $135 per day. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimants left their employment under disqualifying circumstances. Dissatisfaction with wages does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Retzlaff [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 943). This includes situations where a claimant’s wages have been reduced due to a reduction in work hours (see, Matter of Orenstein [Hartnett], 173 AD2d 1029). Moreover, claimants cannot now argue that the changes in the terms of their employment justified their resignations since they accepted the changes for eight months (see, Matter of Frankel [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 773).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 817, 661 N.Y.S.2d 885, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-stoddard-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack