Opinion
Decided and Entered: September 13, 2001.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 15, 2000, which denied claimant's application to reopen a previous decision of the Board ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
Joseph R. Greco, Latham, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), New York City, for respondent.
Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant was employed as a restaurant manager until he resigned after approximately 3½ months stating that he was dissatisfied with his salary of $80,000 per year which he felt was inadequate compensation for the hours, workload and responsibilities required of his position. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant left his employment under disqualifying circumstances. It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one's working conditions, wages or hours does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Sibertzeff [Commissioner of Labor], 264 A.D.2d 936; Matter of Orlik [Commissioner of Labor], 257 A.D.2d 837). Moreover, inasmuch as claimant cited "lack of work" when applying for unemployment insurance benefits, which was a willful misrepresentation, we find no reason to disturb the Board's imposition of a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Blankenship [Commissioner of Labor], 282 A.D.2d 861; Matter of Chalman [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 678).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.