Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

In re the Claim of Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 25, 2003

308 A.D.2d 674; 764 N.Y.S.2d 659; 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9773

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Zerrillo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Matter of Colon (Staffing Solutions Org. LLC--Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
In re the Claim of Follett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
In re the Claim of Hull (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re the Claim of Seiglar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Kabayiza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re the Claim of De Souza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Paul-Marseille (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re Zevallos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Hobson-Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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 June 28, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment as a billing secretary for a law firm without good cause. The record establishes that claimant received a poor performance evaluation and was informed that if his work did not improve within 30 days he would be discharged. Claimant quit, asserting that he was constructively discharged given that the evaluation was unjustified and there was an anticipation of layoffs within the firm. It is well settled that neither criticism from a supervisor regarding a claimant’s job performance (see Matter of Soto [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 908, 908 [1999]) nor quitting in anticipation of discharge (see Matter of Rugelis [Sweeney], 248 AD2d 784, 784 [1998]) constitutes good cause for leaving employment. Inasmuch as continuing work was available to claimant, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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