Opinion
June 14, 2001.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 12, 2000, which denied claimant's application to reopen a previous decision of the Board.
Jerome Greenspan, Plainview, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Carmen R. Torrent of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Mugglin and, Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant was employed as a salesperson by the employer until he resigned after seven days. The record reveals that claimant initially received computer training when he commenced working for the employer, but requested and was given additional training when he was not satisfied with his level of proficiency. Claimant then resigned, stating that he felt he was not qualified for the position inasmuch as he is not computer literate. He made no effort to give the employer an opportunity to rectify the situation (see, Matter of Schell [Hudacs], 192 A.D.2d 1007;see also, Matter of Caldarone [Commissioner of Labor], 270 A.D.2d 562). Under the circumstances, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons, and therefore without good cause, is supported by substantial evidence (see, id.; see also, Matter of Aronson [Hudacs], 194 A.D.2d 1046).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.