In re the Claim of Zwiebel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Zwiebel

254 A.D.2d 559, 678 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D.2d 559 (In re the Claim of Zwiebel) 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 Zwiebel, 254 A.D.2d 559, 678 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 14, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was hired as a commissioned insurance sales rep-' resentative for a bank subsidiary with the understanding that the employer’s customer service representatives would refer customers to her who had expressed an interest in purchasing life insurance policies or annuities. Thereafter, the employer authorized the customer service representatives to sell certain types of insurance and annuity products to customers that had been previously referred to claimant. Believing that this new policy would lead to a drastic decline in her income, claimant resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Our review of the record reveals that although claimant received less customer referrals following the policy change, she also experienced a significant increase in income. In view of this, the Board could conclude that the policy change did not amount to a substantial change in the terms and conditions of claimant’s employment so as to furnish good cause for her resignation (cf, Matter of Knoblauch [Mark Custom Recording— Sweeney], 239 AD2d 761). The Board’s decision is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Spain and Graffeo, 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 14, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was hired as a commissioned insurance sales rep-' resentative for a bank subsidiary with the understanding that the employer’s customer service representatives would refer customers to her who had expressed an interest in purchasing life insurance policies or annuities. Thereafter, the employer authorized the customer service representatives to sell certain types of insurance and annuity products to customers that had been previously referred to claimant. Believing that this new policy would lead to a drastic decline in her income, claimant resigned. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. Our review of the record reveals that although claimant received less customer referrals following the policy change, she also experienced a significant increase in income. In view of this, the Board could conclude that the policy change did not amount to a substantial change in the terms and conditions of claimant’s employment so as to furnish good cause for her resignation (cf, Matter of Knoblauch [Mark Custom Recording— Sweeney], 239 AD2d 761). The Board’s decision is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 559, 678 N.Y.S.2d 702, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-zwiebel-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack