IN RE: the Claim of Sheila JONES

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: the Claim of Sheila JONES, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: July 22, 2004

Before:  MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO, ROSE and LAHTINEN, JJ. Sheila Jones, New York City, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 2003, which ruled 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 ruling that claimant left her employment as a service coordinator for a day-care agency without good cause because her school schedule interfered with her work hours.   It is well settled that leaving employment in order to attend school does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Sherman [Commissioner of Labor], 285 A.D.2d 788, 729 N.Y.S.2d 202 [2001];  Matter of Jing Ying Zeng [Commissioner of Labor], 268 A.D.2d 747, 702 N.Y.S.2d 169 [2000] ).   Claimant's contention that she also quit due to a reduction in her salary, as well as any inconsistencies as to the reasons her salary was reduced, presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Cuttitto [Commissioner of Labor], 303 A.D.2d 814, 755 N.Y.S.2d 321 [2003];  Matter of Cranston [Commissioner of Labor], 294 A.D.2d 694, 741 N.Y.S.2d 614 [2002] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Copied to clipboard