Matter of Doane (Commr. of Labor)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Doane (Commr. of Labor)

140 A.D.3d 1497, 34 N.Y.S.3d 268, 2016 NY Slip Op 04995

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

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket521713

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1497 (Matter of Doane (Commr. of Labor)) 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

Matter of Doane (Commr. of Labor), 140 A.D.3d 1497, 34 N.Y.S.3d 268, 2016 NY Slip Op 04995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 24, 2015, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant retired from his full-time position as a glass glazier in February 2014. He thereafter agreed to return to work part time in May 2014. Claimant left this job after only working for a few days, however, citing the fact that he was being paid at a lower hourly rate than the rate he was paid before he retired. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “It is well settled that dissatisfaction with wages does not constitute good cause for leaving employment for *1498 purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits” (Matter of Kelly [A-1 Tech., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2009] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Poulin [Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1319, 1319 [2015]). Here, claimant admittedly left his employment due to his dissatisfaction with his hourly rate of pay. Although claimant contends that the reduction in his pay rate constituted a substantial change in the terms and conditions of his employment (see Matter of Heller [Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc. — Commis sioner of Labor], 83 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2011]), the employer’s representative testified that claimant was informed of the lower rate of pay at the time he accepted the part-time job offer. Claimant’s conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Cunningham [Commissioner of Labor], 126 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2015]; Matter of Guido [Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 919, 920 [2013]). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it will not be disturbed.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, 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 April 24, 2015, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant retired from his full-time position as a glass glazier in February 2014. He thereafter agreed to return to work part time in May 2014. Claimant left this job after only working for a few days, however, citing the fact that he was being paid at a lower hourly rate than the rate he was paid before he retired. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “It is well settled that dissatisfaction with wages does not constitute good cause for leaving employment for *1498 purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits” (Matter of Kelly [A-1 Tech., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2009] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Poulin [Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1319, 1319 [2015]). Here, claimant admittedly left his employment due to his dissatisfaction with his hourly rate of pay. Although claimant contends that the reduction in his pay rate constituted a substantial change in the terms and conditions of his employment (see Matter of Heller [Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc. — Commis sioner of Labor], 83 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2011]), the employer’s representative testified that claimant was informed of the lower rate of pay at the time he accepted the part-time job offer. Claimant’s conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Cunningham [Commissioner of Labor], 126 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2015]; Matter of Guido [Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 919, 920 [2013]). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it will not be disturbed.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1497, 34 N.Y.S.3d 268, 2016 NY Slip Op 04995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-doane-commr-of-labor-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack