Opinion
2013-09-26
In the Matter of the Claim of Narad PERSAUD, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Narad Persaud, Schenectady, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Narad Persaud, Schenectady, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., ROSE, LAHTINEN and SPAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 29, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
According to claimant, he resigned his position as a part-time bus monitor because he wished to attend college, was dissatisfied with the amount of hours he was assigned and felt “unwanted” and “discriminated” against because he is a native of Guyana. His application for unemployment insurance benefits was contested and, following hearings, the Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld the determination on review, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. “[W]hether a claimant has good cause to leave his or her employment is a factual question for the Board to resolve and its decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Mkhitaryan [Commissioner of Labor], 86 A.D.3d 888, 889, 927 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Pencola [Commissioner of Labor], 92 A.D.3d 1009, 1009, 937 N.Y.S.2d 716 [2012] ). Here, the employer's representative testified that claimant was a valued employee and the reason he could not be given more hours was because additional work was not available due to the loss of customers and reduced summertime demand. There was further testimony that claimant was offered the opportunity to continue working while also attending college, which he declined. Notably, leaving employment to attend school or because of dissatisfaction with one's work environment or schedule may be found not to constitute good cause to resign under the Labor Law ( see Matter of Bielak [Commissioner of Labor], 105 A.D.3d 1226, 1226, 962 N.Y.S.2d 815 [2013]; Matter of DeGennaro [Commissioner of Labor], 68 A.D.3d 1274, 1274, 890 N.Y.S.2d 174 [2009];Matter of Silberman [Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 17 A.D.3d 815, 815, 792 N.Y.S.2d 736 [2005],lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 713, 806 N.Y.S.2d 164, 840 N.E.2d 133 [2005] ). Regarding claimant's challenge to the finding that various misunderstandings at work did not rise to the level of unfair treatment, such credibility issues are for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Georgatos [Commissioner of Labor], 100 A.D.3d 1130, 1131, 952 N.Y.S.2d 921 [2012] ). Significantly, claimant testified that he would not have quit his job had his request for extra hours been granted. Given all the circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the Board's decision that claimant left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons ( see Matter of Silberman [Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 17 A.D.3d at 815, 792 N.Y.S.2d 736).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.