In re the Claim of Covello
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Marcheschi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re the Claim of Anthony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Anthony (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Suffolk County Department of Social Services v. Nicole S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Mazulewicz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Borlang (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Fluman (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 19, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
When claimant was hired as a part-time office assistant, she and her employer agreed that claimant could work flexible hours. Claimant, who was an aspiring actress, testified that she accepted the position with the flexible schedule so that she could attend auditions which were often in the morning. The employer, however, testified that because her business involved communicating with European companies who were in a different time zone, claimant’s hours were intended to be flexible so long as she arrived at work by 10:00 a.m. Claimant resigned after her employer made it clear that claimant was required to begin work by 10:00 a.m. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons,'i.e., because she believed that her work schedule would impede her ability to attend auditions and to pursue her acting career. Claimant’s contention that she resigned because the employer unilaterally changed the terms of her employment which allowed her to set her own hours, a claim refuted by the employer, presented a credibility issue which was for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 699). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.