Opinion
February 11, 1993
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant worked as a release and classification analyst for a custom's broker for approximately one year. At a meeting to discuss her job, claimant learned that her employer was unhappy with her performance in certain areas. The employer did not want to terminate her at that time but told her that she had a definite time period in which to improve her performance and she would then be reevaluated. The employer's representative testified that, instead of accepting this criticism and giving herself the time to better her performance, claimant chose to resign immediately. Although claimant testified that she did not quit, this merely presented a question of credibility within the sole province of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Baker [Hartnett], 147 A.D.2d 790, appeal dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 714; Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 A.D.2d 934). To the extent that claimant thought that she would eventually be fired, quitting in anticipation of discharge does not constitute good cause for leaving one's employment (see, Matter of Mastro [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 708; Matter of Manson [Hartford Acc. Indem. Group — Levine], 50 A.D.2d 980). Criticism by a supervisor is also not good cause (see, Matter of Hogan [Schenectady Discount Corp. — Levine], 50 A.D.2d 650). Under the circumstances, we find substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause and it must therefore be upheld (see, Matter of Sillan [French Tel. Cable Co. — Levine], 53 A.D.2d 719).
Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.