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 Jeremy ARBITALJACOBY, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 13, 2003, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
Claimant worked as a sales representative for an ice cream distributor from June 6, 2002 to August 13, 2002. He resigned from his position after he was threatened by a customer while assisting in the repossession of a freezer. Claimant was also dissatisfied with his compensation and maintained that he was not paid the weekly salary of $500 plus commissions which had been agreed. His claim for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause and this determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and later the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. While fear for one's safety may constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Lyman [National Tractor Trailer School-Sweeney], 247 A.D.2d 812, 812, 669 N.Y.S.2d 454 [1998]; Matter of Hughes [Hartnett], 198 A.D.2d 647, 648, 603 N.Y.S.2d 616 [1993], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 751, 611 N.Y.S.2d 133, 633 N.E.2d 488 [1994] ), general dissatisfaction with working conditions, including salary, does not (see Matter of Giovati [Commissioner of Labor], 4 A.D.3d 598, 598, 770 N.Y.S.2d 923 [2004]; Matter of Luta [Commissioner of Labor], 305 A.D.2d 786, 787, 759 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2003] ). Here, although claimant placed much emphasis on the customer's threatening conduct as the reason for his resignation, he conceded that this incident was the precipitating event which led him to end an already existing unhappy employment situation. He stated that he was not paid the salary agreed and did not like the way the business was managed. Inasmuch as the evidence indicates that claimant left his job for personal and noncompelling reasons, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
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: September 16, 2004
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)