Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Toth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 20, 1997

244 A.D.2d 752; 664 N.Y.S.2d 489; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11786

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Altman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Bejarano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Pickard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Claim of Prusch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Singh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Rugelis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Odock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Loria (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

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 August 9, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from her employment as a secretary after she was criticized by her supervisor for her failure to give advance notice of anticipated absences and was penalized with a two-day suspension from work without pay. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons. We affirm. The inability to get along with a supervisor who is perceived as unduly critical has been found not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Mielewski [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 805, 806) as has resigning in order to avoid an anticipated discharge (see, Matter of Wilson [Sweeney], 223 AD2d 903). The conflict between claimant’s assertion that she was fired and that of her employer asserting that claimant voluntarily resigned presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Bradley [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 949, 949-950).

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

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