Matter of Charlene E. Emeterio v Commissioner of Labor

Annotate this Case
Matter of Emeterio (Commissioner of Labor) 2003 NY Slip Op 18971 [1 AD3d 869] November 26, 2003 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, January 28, 2004

In the Matter of the Claim of Charlene E. Emeterio, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 5, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment as a certified social worker in the adolescent unit of a hospital without good cause. The record establishes that claimant was placed on probation due to issues regarding her job performance. Shortly thereafter, claimant submitted a resignation letter effective July 5, 2002 because she felt that the employer wanted her to leave. On June 12, 2002, the employer advised claimant that, although she would be paid through July 5, 2002, it was not necessary that she continue to work until that date. Neither claimant's conflicts with her supervisors nor their criticism of her job performance constitutes good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Pickard [Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 696, 696 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 615 [2002]; Matter of Krinsky [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 659, 659 [1997]; Matter of Layton [Hudacs], 196 AD2d 943, 944 [1993]). Furthermore, the conflicting testimony as to whether the employer asked for claimant's resignation presented a credibility issue that was within the Board's discretion to resolve (see Matter of Karastathis [Commissioner of Labor], 298 AD2d 822 [2002]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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.