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 Sean S. STEVENS, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 19, 2007, 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 salesperson for a beer distributor until he resigned in March 2006. His ensuing application for unemployment insurance benefits was ultimately denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The Board adhered to its decision upon reconsideration. Claimant now appeals.
The reasons cited by claimant for resigning included his frustration at being removed from an account due to a complaint lodged against him, conflicts with various coworkers, excessive phone calls from his immediate supervisor and the employer's use of foul language during weekly sales meetings. However, neither a general dissatisfaction with the work environment nor the inability to get along with difficult coworkers or supervisors necessarily constitutes good cause for leaving one's employment (see Matter of Crandall-Mars [Commissioner of Labor], 47 A.D.3d 1179, 1179-1180, 850 N.Y.S.2d 692 [2008]; Matter of Ayad [Commissioner of Labor], 41 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 840 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2007] ). The conflicting testimony regarding the circumstances leading to claimant's resignation presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Crandall-Mars [Commissioner of Labor], 47 A.D.3d at 1180, 850 N.Y.S.2d 692). On this record, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances.
Claimant's remaining contentions, including his claims that the decision was based upon hearsay evidence and that he was denied the right to call witnesses, have been reviewed 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 17, 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)