IN RE: the Claim of Thomas E. MOORE

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of Thomas E. MOORE, Appellant. New York Press and Graphics, Inc., Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: September 21, 2006

Before:  CREW III, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN, CARPINELLO and MUGGLIN, JJ. Thomas E. Moore, Albany, appellant pro se. Nolan & Heller, L.L.P., Albany (Francis J. Brennan of counsel), for New York Press and Graphics, Inc., respondent. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 23, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was hired by a publishing company to work in its warehouse and as a courier.   After only a few weeks, he stopped reporting and left a telephone message stating that he would not be returning to work.   Claimant explained that he quit the job because he could not afford the increase in his automobile insurance premium resulting from the use of his personal vehicle for deliveries.   The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.   He now appeals.

We affirm.   At the time that he accepted the job, claimant knew that he was required to use his personal vehicle for deliveries and that there would be an increase in his automobile insurance premium.   He nevertheless took the job hoping that he could obtain affordable insurance.   Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant left his job for personal and noncompelling reasons amounting essentially to his dissatisfaction with a term of his employment (see e.g. Matter of Giordano [Commissioner of Labor], 19 A.D.3d 801, 801, 796 N.Y.S.2d 198 [2005];  Matter of Conners [Commissioner of Labor], 9 A.D.3d 703, 704, 779 N.Y.S.2d 827 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 609, 786 N.Y.S.2d 812, 820 N.E.2d 291 [2004], cert. denied 544 U.S. 1034, 125 S.Ct. 2273, 161 L.Ed.2d 1062 [2005];  Matter of Rose [Commissioner of Labor], 6 A.D.3d 951, 951, 774 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2004] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Copied to clipboard