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 Cynthia R. RHOME, Appellant. New York City Board of Education, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 28, 2007, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant, who was employed as a teacher, was informed that she was required by law to obtain a permanent teaching license prior to June 2006 in order to retain her employment (see 8 NYCRR 120.6). When claimant failed to take one of the required tests and, as a consequence, did not obtain a permanent license, her employment was terminated. Inasmuch as claimant failed to timely complete the mandated licensing requirements, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision that claimant voluntarily separated from her employment without good cause pursuant to the doctrine of provoked discharge is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Toussaint [Commissioner of Labor ], 17 A.D.3d 761, 762, 792 N.Y.S.2d 263 [2005]; Matter of Ambrose [Board of Educ. of Malverne Union Free School Dist.-Hudacs ], 191 A.D.2d 845, 595 N.Y.S.2d 126 [1993]; see also Matter of De Grego [Levine ], 39 N.Y.2d 180, 183, 383 N.Y.S.2d 250, 347 N.E.2d 611 [1976] ). Claimant's proffered explanation for her failure to take the exam created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Toussaint [Commissioner of Labor ], 17 A.D.3d at 762, 792 N.Y.S.2d 263). Claimant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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 24, 2008
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)