Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

In re Carcaterra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 22, 2011

90 A.D.3d 1389; 935 N.Y.2d 365

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Xavier (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
In re the Claim of Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
In re the Claim of Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Matter of Davis (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
In re the Claim of Bolick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Bolick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re Keane (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

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

*1390We affirm. Dissatisfaction with one’s job duties (see Matter of Harris [Commissioner of Labor], 71 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010]; Matter of Paino [Commissioner of Labor], 27 AD3d 820, 820 [2006]) or quitting a job in anticipation of discharge (see Matter of Dixon-Weaver [Commissioner of Labor], 67 AD3d 1243, 1244 [2009]; Matter of Ruggiero [Commissioner of Labor], 63 AD3d 1477, 1478 [2009]) have been held not to constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment. Here, claimant’s unhappiness with her new job duties and concern over possibly losing her job were the factors motivating her to enter into the severance agreement. Although she stated that she had no choice but to sign the agreement as the employer refused to address her complaints, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Doyle [Commissioner of Labor], 78 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2010]; Matter of DeGennaro [Commissioner of Labor], 68 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2009]). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Peters, J.R, Lahtinen, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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