Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

In re Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 15, 2007

37 A.D.3d 964; 829 N.Y.S.2d 750

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re Claim of Diermyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Schwartz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Claim of Battiste (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Javier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Canty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Scoville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim Ubl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)

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 August 30, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as the manager of one of the employer’s convenience stores. She quit her job purportedly due to recurring staffing problems which required her to work for extended periods without a day off. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Dissatisfaction with one’s working hours does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Benyoussef [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 902, 902 [2005]; Matter of Peak [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 779 [2004]). Although claimant’s long hours were allegedly the result of staffing problems, the employer’s district manager stated that claimant did not advise her of the extent of the problems and that, in any event, she hired sufficient employees during the relevant time frame to obviate the need for claimant to work such hours. Claimant’s contrary testimony presented a cred*965ibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Torres [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1093 [2006]).

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.