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 Joan CIOFFI, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 9, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant was employed by a credit union as a customer service representative. She resigned from her employment approximately one month after she was hired because of the unfriendly behavior of her coworkers, who were reluctant to take the time to train her, and the lack of a lunch break. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant's reasons for resigning were personal and noncompelling, thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.
A claimant's dissatisfaction with the prevailing conditions at a workplace, including an unfriendly atmosphere created by coworkers, has been found not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Stearns [Commissioner of Labor], 256 A.D.2d 781, 782, 681 N.Y.S.2d 633; Matter of Murray [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 649, 650, 663 N.Y.S.2d 921). Claimant's additional contention that she was denied a lunch break was controverted by her supervisor who testified that all employees at the credit union were free to take a half-hour lunch break at any time during the day. The discrepancy between this testimony and that given by claimant presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Reifer [Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 949, 677 N.Y.S.2d 820; Matter of Shubert [Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 926, 927, 677 N.Y.S.2d 815). Claimant's remaining contentions, including her assertion that she was denied a fair hearing by certain procedural rulings made at the administrative hearing, have been examined and found to be without merit (see Matter of Neville [Commissioner of Labor], 264 A.D.2d 918, 695 N.Y.S.2d 211).
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 12, 2002
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)