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

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 629 (In re the Claim of Zalinka) 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 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

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance [630]*630Appeal 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]*630Appeal 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 629, 735 N.Y.S.2d 252, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zalinka-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack