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 Roslyn KREMSKY, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 14, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant worked for a data processing company as the vice-president of sales for nine years. She resigned in February 2005, telling her employer that she wished to pursue a business that she had started in July 2004 selling cheesecakes from her home. Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. She now appeals.
We affirm. Initially, we note that resigning from a job to pursue another business endeavor does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Magliaro [Commissioner of Labor], 252 A.D.2d 705, 706, 675 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1998] ). Claimant represented to her employer that she was leaving her job to run her cheesecake business. However, she testified at the hearing that she said this only because of her pride, and that she truly resigned because she was being treated unfairly and the work environment was uncomfortable. Even if claimant's testimony were accepted as true, general dissatisfaction with one's work environment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Fradys [Commissioner of Labor], 308 A.D.2d 672, 673, 764 N.Y.S.2d 661 [2003] ). In view of the foregoing, 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: August 03, 2006
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)