State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 17, 2015 520391 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

TAMMY A. POULIN,

Appellant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 10, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

__________

Tammy A. Poulin, New York City, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed April 8, 2014, which ruled that claimant was

disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits

because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked as a service technician at a motorcycle

sales and repair shop for approximately five months. After her

supervisor told her that she would not be getting a raise,

claimant became upset and asked to leave early and to take the

following day off from work, which requests were granted. 

Claimant later changed her mind about taking the next day off and

called and texted her supervisor that evening, but he did not

respond to her messages. Claimant appeared at the shop the

following day with a U-Haul truck and proceeded to take all of

her tools and equipment without speaking to her supervisor,

except to inform him that she was leaving. Claimant subsequently

applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but was disqualified
-2- 520391 

from receiving them upon the basis that she voluntarily left her

employment without good cause. That determination was upheld by

an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing and, thereafter,

by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant now

appeals. 

We affirm. Initially, it is well established that

dissatisfaction with one's salary does not constitute good cause

for leaving employment (see Matter of Kelly [A-1 Tech.,

Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2009]; Matter of

Hayes [Commissioner of Labor], 64 AD3d 1116, 1116-1117 [2009]). 

Here, claimant testified that, after changing her mind about

taking the next day off and unsuccessfully attempting to reach

her supervisor, she assumed that her job was no longer available

and, consequently, she returned to the shop the next day to load

up her tools and equipment. Claimant conceded that she did not

ask her supervisor about the status of her job or speak to his

superior prior to loading her tools, and she admitted that her

supervisor never told her that she was fired. Under these

circumstances, and given that claimant did not take reasonable

measures to protect her employment, substantial evidence supports

the Board's finding that she voluntarily left her employment

without good cause (see Matter of Goldner [Commissioner of

Labor], 59 AD3d 756, 757 [2009]; Matter of Williams [Commissioner

of Labor], 54 AD3d 1119, 1120 [2008]; Matter of Puchalski

[Commissioner of Labor], 48 AD3d 868, 869 [2008]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 520391 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court