From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Wacksman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 2, 1987
129 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 2, 1987

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Claimant's employer alleges that claimant voluntarily left her job without good cause and thus should have been disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Whether a claimant voluntarily left employment without good cause is a factual question for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and, if supported by substantial evidence, that determination will not be disturbed (Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 A.D.2d 166). The relevant factual findings of the Board in this case, all of which are supported by substantial evidence, are as follows. Claimant was an employee of the Nassau County Department of Senior Citizens Affairs with 10 years' experience working with senior citizens. She had consistently received favorable evaluations and had attained the position of supervisor. In 1983, however, she was transferred to another office, put under the supervision of an employee who was on a lower grade level and assigned to do clerical duties. The transfer significantly increased the distance of her commute. She was given no explanation for the sudden change in her status and attempts to regain her status through grievance procedures were unsuccessful. The Board concluded: "It is clear * * * that claimant, a person of professional standing and with 10 years experience in the agency was obliged, with no adequate explanation being given to her, to perform services not commensurate with her experience and professional standing, and in a position subordinate to that of an individual who held a significantly lower civil service grade. These conditions represented a substantial change in the conditions of her employment and were exasperated by the change in location causing claimant to incur substantial commuting expenses."

In light of the combination of circumstances involved in this case, the Board's finding that claimant had good cause to leave her employment should be affirmed (see, Matter of Denzel [Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. — Roberts], 98 A.D.2d 931, 933, revd on dissenting opn below 62 N.Y.2d 1012; Matter of Pankiewicz [New York Tel. Co. — Roberts], 94 A.D.2d 923).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J.P., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Wacksman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 2, 1987
129 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Matter of Wacksman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of MARY WACKSMAN, Respondent. COUNTY OF NASSAU…

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

Date published: Apr 2, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 848 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Matter of Wigutow

Since general dissatisfaction with job conditions is not a valid excuse to terminate employment and receive…

Matter of Lavecchia

Claimant protested and ultimately resigned as a result of the change in her duties. Significantly, the Board…