In re the Claim of Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Williams

297 A.D.2d 857, 747 N.Y.2d 255, 747 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8326

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 857 (In re the Claim of Williams) 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 Williams, 297 A.D.2d 857, 747 N.Y.2d 255, 747 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was employed as a truck driver when he informed his employer that his full-time schedule kept him away from home for too many hours and that he would continue his employment only if he could do so on a part-time basis. Claimant was notified that he had the option of resigning from his full-time job after which his name would be put on a list of drivers available for part-time work. Claimant agreed and voluntarily resigned. He did not, however, apply for part-time employment, but instead applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons when continuing work was available on a full-time basis. A claimant’s dissatisfaction with the conditions of his employment, including the number of work hours, may not constitute good cause for resigning (see Matter of Hunt [Commissioner of Labor], 286 AD2d 819; see also Matter of Dragoi [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 685, 686). Any discrepancy between claimant’s testimony regarding the events leading up to the end of his employment and that given by his former supervisor raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Magliaro [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 705, 706; Matter of Imran [Sweeney], 212 AD2d 927, 928). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Claimant was employed as a truck driver when he informed his employer that his full-time schedule kept him away from home for too many hours and that he would continue his employment only if he could do so on a part-time basis. Claimant was notified that he had the option of resigning from his full-time job after which his name would be put on a list of drivers available for part-time work. Claimant agreed and voluntarily resigned. He did not, however, apply for part-time employment, but instead applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons when continuing work was available on a full-time basis. A claimant’s dissatisfaction with the conditions of his employment, including the number of work hours, may not constitute good cause for resigning (see Matter of Hunt [Commissioner of Labor], 286 AD2d 819; see also Matter of Dragoi [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 685, 686). Any discrepancy between claimant’s testimony regarding the events leading up to the end of his employment and that given by his former supervisor raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Magliaro [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 705, 706; Matter of Imran [Sweeney], 212 AD2d 927, 928). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 857, 747 N.Y.2d 255, 747 N.Y.S.2d 255, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-williams-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack