Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Krinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 3, 1997

238 A.D.2d 659; 655 N.Y.S.2d 678; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3140

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Emeterio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Klein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Grayson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Caruso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Ikoli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Lonczynski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Harpule (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
In re the Claim of Shabbir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
In re the Claim of Wolfenburg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
In re the Claim of Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 21, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant, a head bank teller, became an employee of Astoria Federal Savings Bank after claimant’s former employer and Astoria Bank (hereinafter the employer) merged. Approximately two weeks after the merger, claimant’s employer placed her on probation for three months due to various incidents of insubordination and unprofessional leadership style. Claimant, feeling that she was being harassed and fearing termination, informed her employer that she was resigning.

It is well settled that neither a supervisor’s criticism of an employee’s work product (see, Matter of Mielewski [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 805) nor quitting in anticipation of discharge (see, Matter of Chick [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 812) constitutes good cause for leaving employment. Additionally, claimant’s contention that her medical condition caused her to leave her employment is without merit inasmuch as claimant’s physician never advised her to resign from her position (see, Matter of Cooper [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 678). We find that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.