Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

In re the Claim of Maine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 12, 2001

282 A.D.2d 854; 723 N.Y.S.2d 541; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3667

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Peichun Huang (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
In re the Claim of Romano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Claim of Viohl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Claim of Turner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re the Claim of Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Dangler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Soto (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Rainville (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 July 14, 2000, which, 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.

*855Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment as a clerk with the State Insurance Fund without good cause. Claimant testified that he resigned from his clerk position because of work-related stress caused by an increased work load due to a reduction in staff. Nevertheless, claimant did not inform his supervisor of the problems he was experiencing and he received no medical advice to quit his job. It has been held that dissatisfaction with one’s employment, including assertions of being overworked, does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Costello [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 845; Matter of Sibertzeff [Commissioner of Labor], 264 AD2d 936).

Furthermore, claimant’s earnings from his subsequent two-week employment with EAB Personnel Services were insufficient to break the disqualification caused by his voluntary separation from employment with the State Insurance Fund (see, Labor Law § 593 [1] [a]).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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