Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007

In re the Claim of Tubiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 12, 2007

39 A.D.3d 992; 834 N.Y.S.2d 355

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Feierman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Soto-Harold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Bouton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Claim of Hayes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re Johnson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Claim of LoRusso (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Claim of Lignos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Gramonte (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 April 22, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant briefly worked as a receptionist at a doctor’s office. After she was reprimanded concerning the manner in which she was handling patient calls, claimant abruptly left her job. On her application for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant represented that she was discharged. Although she initially received benefits in the amount of $1,017, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. It also charged her with a recoverable overpayment of benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 597 (4) and reduced her right to receive future benefits by eight effective days on the basis that she made a willful misrepresentation. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Criticism by an employer has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment (see Matter of DeCarlo [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 1003 [2004]; Matter of Roawden [Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 658 [1999]). In the instant case, the employer’s office manager testified that after she overhead claimant having extended telephone discussions with patients, she reminded claimant of the proper protocol for answering calls and that claimant left her job immediately thereafter. Although claimant maintained that she was fired, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Giustino [Commissioner of Labor], 11 AD3d 803, 804 [2004]). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons. Moreover, inasmuch as claimant incorrectly represented that she was discharged when applying for benefits, the Board properly concluded that she made a willful misrepresentation to obtain benefits and charged her with a *993recoverable overpayment (see Matter of Krisher [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 894, 895 [2006]).

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

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