Matter of LoRusso (Commissioner of Labor)

Matter of LoRusso (Commissioner of Labor) 2009 NY Slip Op 09128 [68 AD3d 1317] December 10, 2009 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In the Matter of the Claim of Martyne S. LoRusso, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—[*1] Martyne S. LoRusso, New York City, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 3, 2008, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as an administrative assistant for a piano repair company for approximately five months. After she apparently made an error in billing a customer, she was confronted with the error by her employer and became involved in an argument. The employer told claimant to go home for the rest of the day, which was a Friday, and to return to work the following Monday. Claimant never returned to work and applied for unemployment insurance benefits, claiming that she was discharged for a lack of work. After claimant began receiving benefits, it was determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the basis that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant was also charged with a recoverable overpayment and a forfeiture penalty based upon a finding that she made a willful misrepresentation to receive benefits. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained those determinations and this decision was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we note that an employer's criticism of one's performance does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Esposito [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d 1202 [2009]; Matter of Bouton [Commissioner of Labor], 60 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2009]). Moreover, "it is within the exclusive province of the Board to resolve issues of credibility raised by conflicting [*2]testimony" (Matter of Becotte [Commissioner of Labor], 42 AD3d 790, 790-791 [2007]). Here, claimant did not return to work following an argument with her employer over an alleged mistake she had made. Although claimant testified that her employer terminated her after the argument, both the employer and a coworker testified that claimant was told to leave for the day and return to work the following business day. Accordingly, we conclude that the Board's determination that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause is supported by substantial evidence. Similarly, inasmuch as claimant falsely represented that she was discharged for a lack of work when applying for benefits, the Board properly concluded that she made a willful misrepresentation and charged her with a recoverable overpayment and a forfeiture penalty (see Matter of Tubiak [Commissioner of Labor], 39 AD3d 992, 992-993 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Rose, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.