In re the Claim of Bartczak
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Esposito (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- MatterofMarkaj[Commr.ofLabor] (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Markaj (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Markaj (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Fox (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re the Claim of James R. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- In re the Claim of Eck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- In re the Claim of De John (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
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
—Ap
Claimant resigned his employment as a warehouse worker citing unfair treatment and criticism by new management and a significant reduction in salary. Claimant did not discuss his salary situation with the employer prior to his resignation. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Criticism of an employee’s job performance by a supervisor and an employee’s dissatisfaction with wages have been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Ginsberg [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 702; Matter of Gatza [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 747). Moreover, claimant cannot now argue that the changes in his wages and his claims of disparate treatment justified his resignation since he accepted the situation for several months without complaint (see, Matter of Ginsberg [Commissioner of Labor], supra; Matter of Frankel [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 773, 774).
Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.