MATTHEW J. CURLEY v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1720-05T51720-05T5

MATTHEW J. CURLEY,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent-Respondent,

and

HARRAH'S CASINO and

ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________________

 

Submitted October 12, 2006 - Decided November 2, 2006

Before Judges C. S. Fisher and Yannotti.

On appeal from a final decision of the Board of Review, Department of Labor, Docket No. 87,559.

Matthew J. Curley, appellant pro se.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent Board of Review (Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Jennifer B. Pitre, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Respondent Harrah's Casino and Entertainment, Inc. has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Matthew J. Curley (Curley) appeals from a final determination of the Board of Review (Board), dated November 10, 2005, finding Curley ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. We affirm.

The scope of our review of a decision by the Board in an unemployment compensation matter is exceedingly narrow. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will not disturb the agency's decision unless we find that the decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Ibid. Moreover, we are obliged to accept the agency's findings of fact if based upon sufficient credible evidence in the record. Id. at 210 (citing Self v. Bd. of Review, 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)).

Here, the Board found that Curley was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), a statute that bars a claimant from benefits "[f]or the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed . . . ." The term "good cause" in N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a), means a cause "sufficient to justify an employee's voluntarily leaving the ranks of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed." Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 214 (quoting Domenico v. Bd. of Review, Dep't of Indus., 192 N.J. Super. 284, 287 (App. Div. 1983)). The phrase "attributable to the work" excludes all causes that are personal to a claimant and not connected with the work. Id. at 213 (citing Stauhs v. Bd. of Review, 93 N.J. Super. 451, 457 (App. Div. 1967)).

At the hearing before the Appeal Tribunal on October 3, 2005, Curley testified that he had been employed as a dealer at Harrah's Casino in New Jersey. Curley quit his job effective July 7, 2005, because he had been promised a job in Florida where he has another residence. Curley explained that he was supposed to start his new job in June 2005 but was unable to do so because he did not sell his New Jersey home until July 2005. The job in Florida was not available when he arrived.

Curley conceded that, other than relocation to take a new job, he did not have any other reason for leaving his position at Harrah's. Curley also said that he went to the unemployment office in Camden and asked if he could collect benefits if the Florida job was not held for him. Curley claimed that he was told that he could collect benefits. However, he was later informed that he was not eligible because he left his job for a personal reason. Curley stated, "I didn't leave for a personal reason. I left because I was promised a job and . . . when I got [t]here, I was a month too late . . . ."

In our view, the evidence provides ample support for the Board's finding that Curley is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Curley's testimony establishes that he left his position at Harrah's for reasons that had nothing to do with his work at Harrah's. Relocation to take a position in another state may be a perfectly valid reason to leave a job. However, it is a personal reason, not one that is "attributable to [the] work." N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1720-05T5

November 2, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.