From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Paul-Marseille

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

94862.

Decided and Entered June 24, 2004.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 10, 2003, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Michael D. Diederich Jr., Stony Point, for appellant.

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

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Claimant worked as a receptionist and a billing clerk at a medical office. On August 26, 2002, her supervisor advised her that he was letting her go with two weeks' notice. Claimant left work that day, never to return. She filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, indicating that she was fired. After she began collecting benefits, the Department of Labor found, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained this finding and this decision was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. "In general, leaving employment in anticipation of a scheduled discharge date will not constitute good cause for resigning within the meaning of the Labor Law" (Matter of Miller [Commissioner of Labor], 296 A.D.2d 693, 694 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Santiago [Commissioner of Labor], 308 A.D.2d 674). Here, it is undisputed that claimant left her position two weeks before her scheduled termination. Although she maintains that she did not understand what her supervisor meant when he informed her that he was giving her two weeks' notice, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Cieslewicz [Commissioner of Labor], 1 A.D.3d 878, 878;Matter of McCullough [Commissioner of Labor], 307 A.D.2d 567, 568). Therefore, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Paul-Marseille

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 24, 2004
8 A.D.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Paul-Marseille

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF IRMITE A. PAUL-MARSEILLE, Appellant…

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

Date published: Jun 24, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 922 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
779 N.Y.S.2d 269

Citing Cases

In the Matter of Fox

s. Turning to the merits, we find that there is substantial evidence to support the decision of the…