From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Altman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 2004
3 A.D.3d 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94373.

Decided and Entered: January 8, 2004.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 17, 2002, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Anne L. Altman, New York City, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Steven Segall of counsel), for respondent.

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


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a bartender without good cause. After claimant received an adverse report from a spotter, a person who evaluates an employee's performance, claimant was taken off the schedule for one day. Claimant disagreed with the disciplinary measure and, when she complained to the manager, an argument ensued. Thereafter, claimant left and failed to return the following day as scheduled. It is well settled that criticism from a supervisor, even if perceived as harsh or unfair, does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Karastathis [Commissioner of Labor], 298 A.D.2d 822) nor does failure to get along with one's supervisor (see Matter of Toth [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 752). Claimant's assertion for the first time on appeal that she was sexually harassed and intimidated by the manager was not raised at the administrative hearing and will not be considered on this appeal (see e.g. Matter of Kearse [Commissioner of Labor], 308 A.D.2d 628;Matter of Graham [Commissioner of Labor], 305 A.D.2d 926). Furthermore, inasmuch as claimant indicated on her application for unemployment insurance benefits that her employment ended due to lack of work, substantial evidence supports the Board's assessment of a recoverable overpayment of benefits as a result of claimant's willful misrepresentation (see Matter of Bracci [Commissioner of Labor], 298 A.D.2d 823, 824).

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

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Altman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 2004
3 A.D.3d 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Altman

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF ANNE L. ALTMAN, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

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

Date published: Jan 8, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 467

Citing Cases

Scott v. CR England Inc.

In carrying out this statutory obligation, a determination that a claimant was not so engaged results in a…

Matter of Horvath

Claimant's sole contention is that the settlement agreement with her employer which resolved the…