In re the Claim of Zalinka
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Luta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re the Claim of Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re the Claim of Florio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re the Claim of Giovati (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re the Claim of Lynd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
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
Claimant declined a permanent position as a computer programmer due to the limited daytime travel required of the position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. We affirm. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one’s job or working conditions does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 699; Matter of Wojcik [Noco Motor Fuels—Sweeney], 239 AD2d 773, 774). To the extent that claimant’s version of events surrounding her separation from employment differed from that of the employer, this raised a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Mannetta [Sweeney], supra).
Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.