In re the Claim of Tripp

69 A.D.3d 1292, 895 N.Y.2d 545
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1292 (In re the Claim of Tripp) 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 Tripp, 69 A.D.3d 1292, 895 N.Y.2d 545 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

[1293]*1293While working for a temporary employment agency, claimant received a two-week assignment to work for a company performing data entry and other clerical duties. She reported to the assignment, but left after working only part of one day because she did not have enough to do and did not like the amount of copying required. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits and, following various proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. In addition, upon finding that claimant made a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits, the Board charged her with a recoverable overpayment and imposed a forfeiture penalty. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one’s job does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Chereshnev [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 804, 805 [2002]; Matter of De John [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 848, 849 [2000]). In the case at hand, it is undisputed that claimant failed to complete the assignment because she did not like the tasks required and felt that she did not have enough to do. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. In addition, although claimant seeks to challenge the finding that she made a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits, she did not appeal the Administrative Law Judge’s decision on this issue and, therefore, it is not properly before us (see Matter of Kingston [Commissioner of Labor], 4 AD3d 716, 717 [2004]).

Peters, J.E, Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, 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 Agranovich
72 A.D.3d 1317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 A.D.3d 1292, 895 N.Y.2d 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-tripp-nyappdiv-2010.