In re the Claim of Pinedo
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Pollack (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re the Claim of Vega (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re the Claim of Zajaceskowski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- In re the Claim of Schachtman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- In re the Claim of Ruballo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- In re the Claim of Bollweg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
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 December 3, 1998, which, inter alia, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
Claimant, a desktop publisher, voluntarily left his employment due to dissatisfaction with his salary. Upon review of the record; we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling denying claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits upon a finding that his employment was terminated under disqualifying circumstances. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with wages and promotional opportunities does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Saha [Mitsui Trust & Banking Co. — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 963). To the extent that claimant also contends that he never received certain paychecks from the employer, the employer testified that it reissued the paychecks in question and sent them to claimant. The conflicting testimony on this point merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Halpern [Chapdelaine Corporate Sec.— Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 702). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.
Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.