In re the Claim of Ginsberg, 252 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Ginsberg, 252 A.D.2d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 703 Claimant's failure to address issues with employer or union4 citing cases3 listed here
  • In re the Claim of McCarthy, 120 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Prior to quitting, claimant made no effort to address the issue with either the employer or his union (see Matter of Sampica [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 702, 703 [1998]).
  • MatterofMcCarthy[Commr.ofLabor], No. 518352 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't Aug. 7, 2014).published
    Prior to quitting, claimant made no effort to address the issue with either the employer or his union (see Matter of Sampica [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 702, 703 [1998]).
  • In re the Claim of Rahn, 308 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2003).published
    In general, a claimant’s dissatisfaction with a job’s scheduled work hours may not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Sampica [Commissioner of Labor], 252 AD2d 702, 703 [1998]), nor may a reduction in the number of…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Ginsberg, Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 9, 1998.
Published opinion
252 A.D.2d 702
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8166
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 16, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant resigned from his employment as a driver for the president of a medical waste disposal company after the president began to consistently criticize claimant’s manner of driving. Claimant, believing that the criticism was temporary, did not inform the president that he would resign if the criticism continued. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Criticism of an employee’s job performance by a supervisor has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Andriano [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 731, 732), particularly where, as here, claimant failed to protect his employment by discussing his concerns with the employer prior to quitting (see, Matter of Gatza [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 747, 748; Matter of Illerbrun [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 722).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.