In re the Claim of Youngblood

10 A.D.3d 797, 781 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10973
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 23, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 797 (In re the Claim of Youngblood) 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 Youngblood, 10 A.D.3d 797, 781 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[798]*798Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 15, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was the district manager of a retail laundry chain. His employer suspected that he was having an affair with an employee who he supervised and, as a result, planned to transfer him to the position of store specialist where he would not have contact with this individual. The position carried the same salary and benefits, but required claimant to work at only one location, instead of many. Claimant resigned because he believed the new position was a demotion. His application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Dissatisfaction with a change in job assignment, and resulting loss of prestige or privileges, does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment particularly where the essential terms and conditions of employment remain unchanged (see Matter of Anderson [Suffolk County Dept, of Civ. Serv.—Commissioner of Labor], 8 AD3d 863, 864 [2004]; Matter of Bingel [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 780, 781 [2003]). Here, despite the fact that claimant would receive the same benefits and salary, and also perform managerial duties as a store specialist, he perceived the position to be a demotion because of the loss of status and perks. Resigning for this reason does not constitute good cause for leaving employment and, therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin 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

Related

In re the Claim of Crawford
54 A.D.3d 1120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Singh
28 A.D.3d 1054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 A.D.3d 797, 781 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-youngblood-nyappdiv-2004.