In re the Claim of Zalinka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zalinka

290 A.D.2d 629, 735 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 3, 2002·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance [630] Appeal Board, filed October 4, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance •benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant declined a permanent position as a computer programmer due to the limited daytime travel required of the position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one’s job or working conditions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 699; Matter of Wojcik [Noco Motor Fuels—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 773, 774). To the extent that claimant’s version of events surrounding her separation from employment differed from that of the employer, this raised a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], supra).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 [630] Appeal Board, filed October 4, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance •benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant declined a permanent position as a computer programmer due to the limited daytime travel required of the position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one’s job or working conditions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 699; Matter of Wojcik [Noco Motor Fuels—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 773, 774). To the extent that claimant’s version of events surrounding her separation from employment differed from that of the employer, this raised a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], supra).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Zalinka, 290 A.D.2d 629, 735 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

290 A.D.2d 629 (In re the Claim of Zalinka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related