In re the Claim of Yap

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Yap

257 A.D.2d 831, 684 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 358

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 257 A.D.2d 831 (In re the Claim of Yap) 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 Yap, 257 A.D.2d 831, 684 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 358 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

We find that substantial evidence supports the Unemploy[832]*832ment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a recruiter without good cause after her supervisor removed her from a particular assignment, prohibited her from seeking new clients while existing clients needed attention and later criticized her receipt of personal telephone calls at work. Criticism by a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, even where harsh words are used or the supervisor is perceived as unduly critical (see, Matter of Viruet [McKenzie, McGhee & Harper— Sweeney], 245 AD2d 707). Likewise, dissatisfaction with one’s wages (see, Matter of Valentin [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 622) or work assignment (see, Matter of La Pietra [Sweeney], 228 AD2d 742) does not constitute a valid reason for resigning. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 July 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

We find that substantial evidence supports the Unemploy[832]*832ment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a recruiter without good cause after her supervisor removed her from a particular assignment, prohibited her from seeking new clients while existing clients needed attention and later criticized her receipt of personal telephone calls at work. Criticism by a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment, even where harsh words are used or the supervisor is perceived as unduly critical (see, Matter of Viruet [McKenzie, McGhee & Harper— Sweeney], 245 AD2d 707). Likewise, dissatisfaction with one’s wages (see, Matter of Valentin [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 622) or work assignment (see, Matter of La Pietra [Sweeney], 228 AD2d 742) does not constitute a valid reason for resigning. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 831, 684 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-yap-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack