IN RE: the Claim of Dorothy L. HOWE

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: the Claim of Dorothy L. HOWE, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: June 22, 2006

Before:  CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, PETERS, CARPINELLO and MUGGLIN, JJ. Dorothy L. Howe, Walton, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 2, 2004, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked part time at a veterinary clinic and at the same time held a full-time job at a different employer.   After she was informed by her full-time employer that her health insurance premiums would be increasing and that she would be put on a seasonal layoff for approximately two months, claimant resigned from her position at the veterinary clinic.   She applied for unemployment insurance benefits and collected $1,740.   Thereafter, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause and charged her with a recoverable overpayment of $1,740, prompting this appeal.

It undisputed that claimant left her job at the veterinary clinic as a result of financial circumstances, including concerns over childcare expenses, which made it unprofitable for her to continue working there.   In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons (see e.g. Matter of Oquendo [Commissioner of Labor], 20 A.D.3d 854, 800 N.Y.S.2d 460 [2005];  Matter of Pullano [Commissioner of Labor], 294 A.D.2d 747, 748, 742 N.Y.S.2d 429 [2002] ).   Furthermore, insofar as a Department of Labor representative testified that claimant did not report that she quit this job, we find no reason to disturb the Board's finding of a recoverable overpayment (see Labor Law § 597[4];  Matter of Kanela [Commissioner of Labor], 21 A.D.3d 632, 633, 799 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2005] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Copied to clipboard