From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re the Claim of Fil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

June 20, 1991

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Criticism of an employee's work by a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one's employment (Matter of Hogan [Schenectady Discount Corp. — Levine], 50 A.D.2d 650). What constitutes good cause is a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (Matter of Steed [Roberts], 115 A.D.2d 166). In this case, the Board found that claimant quit because she was upset about a warning critical of her performance in organizing and cleaning her work area and that the warning did not justify her leaving her job. These findings, along with the Board's conclusion that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause, are supported by substantial evidence in the record and must be upheld (see, Matter of Labissiere [Levine], 51 A.D.2d 1078; Matter of La Greca [Catherwood], 30 A.D.2d 597).

Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re the Claim of Fil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 20, 1991
174 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

In re the Claim of Fil

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of KATHY O. FIL, Appellant. THOMAS F. HARTNETT…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1991

Citations

174 A.D.2d 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
571 N.Y.S.2d 605