Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Ernest IKOLI, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 31, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
After two years of working for the same supervisor, claimant resigned from his position as a documentary examiner for a bank, claiming that continual harassment and pressure regarding his work adversely affected his health. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Neither an inability to get along with a supervisor nor criticism of an employee's performance by a supervisor constitutes good cause for leaving one's employment (see, Matter of Mielewski [Sweeney], 227 A.D.2d 805, 806, 642 N.Y.S.2d 437). Furthermore, although claimant testified that the work-related stress increased his high blood pressure, claimant admitted that his physician never advised him to quit his job (see, Matter of Krinsky [Sweeney], 238 A.D.2d 659, 659, 655 N.Y.S.2d 678, 679). Claimant's contention that the Board failed to consider an undated letter from his doctor is without merit inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that claimant attempted to submit the letter into evidence. Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision and, accordingly, affirm.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 09, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)