In re the Claim of Viruet

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Viruet

245 A.D.2d 707, 666 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12963

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 707 (In re the Claim of Viruet) 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 Viruet, 245 A.D.2d 707, 666 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 7, 1997, which [708]*708ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Although we recognize that the determination of whether an employee voluntarily left his or her employment without good cause constitutes a factual question for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve, there nevertheless must be substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision in that regard. Based upon our review of the record before us, we cannot say that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant, a receptionist for a law firm, was justified in leaving her employment due to the “repeated [ ] and public[ ]” criticism of her work by one of the employer’s partners. Criticism of an employee’s performance by a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Baxter [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 623), even where harsh words are used (see, Matter of Grubman [Notaro—Sweeney], 242 AD2d 767 [criticism included accusing the claimant of “milking” and “abusing” her position]; Matter of Collins [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 758 [criticism included attacking the claimant’s teaching abilities and informing him that “if he did not like it he could leave”]). Claimant conceded that she was. not reprimanded in front of clients, and her testimony as to the circumstances under which her performance was called into question was inconsistent and, as a whole, does not support the Board’s finding that she was publicly humiliated by the partner. Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be reversed.

White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, claim dismissed and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

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

Crew III, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 7, 1997, which [708]*708ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Although we recognize that the determination of whether an employee voluntarily left his or her employment without good cause constitutes a factual question for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve, there nevertheless must be substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision in that regard. Based upon our review of the record before us, we cannot say that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant, a receptionist for a law firm, was justified in leaving her employment due to the “repeated [ ] and public[ ]” criticism of her work by one of the employer’s partners. Criticism of an employee’s performance by a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see, Matter of Baxter [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 623), even where harsh words are used (see, Matter of Grubman [Notaro—Sweeney], 242 AD2d 767 [criticism included accusing the claimant of “milking” and “abusing” her position]; Matter of Collins [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 758 [criticism included attacking the claimant’s teaching abilities and informing him that “if he did not like it he could leave”]). Claimant conceded that she was. not reprimanded in front of clients, and her testimony as to the circumstances under which her performance was called into question was inconsistent and, as a whole, does not support the Board’s finding that she was publicly humiliated by the partner. Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be reversed.

White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, claim dismissed and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 707, 666 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-viruet-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack