Matter of Campisi (Commissioner of Labor)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Matter of Campisi (Commissioner of Labor) 2012 NY Slip Op 08394 Decided on December 6, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: December 6, 2012
514696 In the Matter of the Claim of

[*1]BARNEY CAMPISI JR., Appellant.

and

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Calendar Date: October 29, 2012
Before: Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ.


Barney Campisi Jr., Mineola, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York
City (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 16, 2011, which, upon resettlement, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment as a used car salesman without good cause. Claimant testified that he was entitled to lump-sum retirement benefits from Social Security that would be reduced if he continued to work, and admittedly told his employer that he was quitting to obtain those benefits. Resigning to obtain Social Security benefits "does not constitute good cause for leaving employment," and the Board was free to reject claimant's assertion that he actually quit his job for other reasons (Matter of Rizzicone [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2006]; see Matter of Berlowitz [Brighton Cent. School Dist.—Commissioner of Labor], 12 AD3d 763, 764 [2004]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, 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.