From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of the Claim of Cioffi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 12, 2002
297 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

91541

September 12, 2002.

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.

Joan Cioffi, Hartsdale, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and, Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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; Matter of Murray [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 649, 650). 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; Matter of Shubert [Commissioner of Labor], 253 A.D.2d 926, 927). 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).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of the Claim of Cioffi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 12, 2002
297 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Matter of the Claim of Cioffi

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of JOAN CIOFFI, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 12, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 854 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 598

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Weaver

Rather, the reasons that claimant gave for leaving his employment amount to a failure to get along with his…

In the Matter of Penigian

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant…