IN RE: the Claim of Linda E. EPPS

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: the Claim of Linda E. EPPS, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: October 26, 2000

Before:  SPAIN, J.P., GRAFFEO, MUGGLIN, ROSE and LAHTINEN, JJ. D. Jeffrey Gosch, Syracuse, for appellant. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Bessie Bazile of counsel), New York City, for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 30, 1999, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

 Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a meter reader for a utility company, voluntarily left her employment without good cause.   Claimant, who lives in the City of Albany, accepted a six-month assignment in the City of Glens Falls, Warren County.   At the end of the assignment, claimant declined the opportunity to continue working at the same location due to the lengthy commute and because her two teenage children were unsupervised and experiencing behavioral problems.   Although claimant was placed on the employer's rehire list in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, the terms of the collective bargaining agreement are not dispositive of whether claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Desmarais [Sweeney], 234 A.D.2d 839, 839-840, 651 N.Y.S.2d 243, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 876, 661 N.Y.S.2d 823, 684 N.E.2d 272).

 Moreover, one who accepts employment knowing the conditions thereof cannot later invoke those conditions to demonstrate good cause for leaving such employment (see, Matter of Dunn [Sweeney], 243 A.D.2d 798, 662 N.Y.S.2d 931;  see, Matter of Cinque [Sweeney], 224 A.D.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 794).   In view of the foregoing and given the fact that continuing work was available to claimant (see, Matter of Wiater [Commissioner of Labor], 267 A.D.2d 578, 699 N.Y.S.2d 511), we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.   We also find evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that claimant made willful false statements to obtain benefits inasmuch as claimant, aware that continuing work was available, indicated on her application for benefits that she was no longer employed due to lack of work (see, Matter of Zipes [Commissioner of Labor], 274 A.D.2d 819, 710 N.Y.S.2d 736;  Matter of Attara [Commissioner of Labor], 257 A.D.2d 936, 687 N.Y.S.2d 178).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Copied to clipboard