MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Claimant was employed as a production worker in a glass factory until she resigned to return to her home in Pennsylvania with her husband who had recently retired from employment with the same employer. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant's decision to leave her employment, while understandable, constituted personal and noncompelling reasons for purposes of eligibility for benefits (see, Matter of Dampman [Sweeney], 246 A.D.2d 940;Matter of Gawerecki [Sweeney], 243 A.D.2d 809; Matter of Conti [Hudacs], 186 A.D.2d 303). Claimant's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
The record discloses that claimant's relocation was motivated by her husband's desire to distance himself from his stress-inducing relatives. As no proof was presented to show that the relocation was medically necessary, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ruling that claimant left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons ( see, Matter of Conti [Hudacs], 186 A.D.2d 303, 304). Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.