SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4173-19

GAIL ROSSO,

Appellant,

v.

BOARD OF REVIEW,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

and EDWIN J. GARINO, 

D.D.S., L.L.C.,

Respondents.

_________________________

Submitted November 10, 2021 – Decided February 28, 2022

Before Judges Fuentes and Gummer.

On appeal from the Board of Review, Department of 

Labor, Docket No. 207504.

Gail Rosso, appellant pro se.

Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent Board of Review (Donna Arons, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Andy Jong, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4173-19

The Board of Review of the New Jersey Department of Labor affirmed a 

decision of the Department's Appeal Tribunal, disqualifying claimant Gail 

Rosso from receiving unemployment benefits under N.J.S.A 43:21-5(a) because 

she had left work voluntarily for reasons unrelated to her work. Claimant 

appeals the Board's decision, which we affirm. 

Claimant was employed by Edwin J. Garino, D.D.S., L.L.C. from May 

1987 through February 5, 2020. She worked as an office manager in Dr. 

Garino's dental practice. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits. A 

deputy from the Department's Division of Unemployment Insurance disqualified 

claimant from receiving benefits, finding she had left her job voluntarily on 

January 12, 2020, "to move out of the area." The deputy found that reason to be 

"personal" and not "good cause attributable to the work." 

Claimant appealed the deputy's decision. During a hearing before the 

Appeal Tribunal, the examiner asked claimant what reason she had given her 

employer for her resignation. She testified: "the fact that he was going to be 

retiring shortly and I would not have a job, and also my husband lost his job in 

January and couldn't find another job. So, we chose to move to Florida near our 

family so that he could . . . get new employment." She also stated she would 

have stayed at her job if her husband had not lost his job. When asked again for 
3

A-4173-19

the reason she had given her employer as to why she was leaving her job, 

claimant testified, "[b]ecause my husband was losing his job. He was told that 

he only had two months left and he had to leave in January. . . . he was looking 

for other work and couldn’t find any so we decided to move to Florida to be near 

our family." When asked why they were relocating to Florida, she responded: 

"so my husband could find a job easier than in New Jersey. He tried. He couldn't 

find one. Since we have family here we thought we would move closer to them 

so that we have the support of them until he could find a job." Given an 

opportunity to provide additional information to the Tribunal, claimant testified: 

the reason I left is obviously because my husband lost 

his job. Tried to find new employment and could not. 

He had been looking for quite a while, and mixed with 

that and the fact I was only working two days a week 

now in the job I had been at 32 years, it took a lot for 

me to . . . leave, but after my husband lost his job and 

my boss cut his hours down, and was bringing in a new

dentist shortly, and now with the coronavirus I

wouldn’t have had a job anyway right at this moment, 

we decided the best option would be to live closer to 

family for support until my husband found a job. I 

didn’t take it lightly, believe me. I've been with him a 

very long time. It's a very hard thing to do but we had 

no income except for mine and . . . it wasn’t making the 

bills. So, that's the reason I left. 

Although her employer had reduced her hours, he had not reduced her salary. 

He also had not told her he was going to terminate her for any reason. Claimant 
4

A-4173-19

confirmed no one had told her she would lose her job when the new dentist 

arrived: "No, I was just saying that's what I was thinking, but that's not the 

reason I left. I left because of my husband . . . losing [his] job . . . and not 

finding work." 

After the hearing, the Tribunal issued a written decision affirming the 

deputy's decision. The Tribunal found claimant had resigned "to relocate[] . . . 

to Florida with her husband so he could find a new employment because he was 

going to be losing his job in [January] and they have family in Florida and be 

closer for their support while her husband [was] looking for work." The 

Tribunal also found claimant would have continued to work for her employer if 

her husband had not lost his job. The Tribunal determined, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 

43:21-5(a), claimant was disqualified for benefits because her reason for 

relocating to Florida was "personal and unrelated to the work itself" and she had 

"left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." 

Claimant appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Board. The Board 

affirmed the decision.

On appeal, claimant contends the future of her job was "uncertain"

because Dr. Garino planned to retire "some time soon with no determined date, 

which left his employees uncertain about their future . . . ." She asserts she had 
5

A-4173-19

to "weigh the choice of staying in a position with no certain future . . . or to 

resign from her position . . . to follow her husband to Florida to support his 

search for employment." She also argues she has been unable to find 

employment due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has an increased need for 

unemployment benefits.

The scope of our review of an administrative agency's final determination 

is strictly limited. Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997); see also

Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 234 N.J. 150, 157 (2018)

("Judicial review of agency determinations is limited."). An agency's decision 

may not be disturbed on appeal unless it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, 

or inconsistent with applicable law. Brady, 152 N.J. at 210. "If the Board's 

factual findings are supported 'by sufficient credible evidence, courts are obliged 

to accept them.'" Ibid. (quoting Self v. Bd. of Rev., 91 N.J. 453, 459 (1982)).

"[I]n reviewing the factual findings made in an unemployment compensation 

proceeding, the test is not whether an appellate court would come to the same 

conclusion if the original determination was its to make, but rather whether the 

factfinder could reasonably so conclude upon the proofs." Ibid. (quoting 

Charatan v. Bd. of Rev., 200 N.J. Super. 74, 79 (App. Div. 1985)); see also

Futterman v. Bd. of Rev., 421 N.J. Super. 281, 287 (App. Div. 2011). 
6

A-4173-19

To avoid disqualification, claimant had the burden of establishing she had 

left work for "good cause attributable to work." Brady, 152 N.J. at 218; see also

N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) (providing an employee who "has left work voluntarily 

without good cause attributable to such work" is disqualified from 

unemployment compensation benefits). "Good cause attributable to such work"

is defined in N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(b) as "a reason related directly to the 

individual's employment, which was so compelling as to give the individual no 

choice but to leave the employment." An employee has left work "voluntarily" 

within the meaning of the statute "only if 'the decision whether to go or to stay 

lay at the time with the worker alone.'" Lord v. Bd. of Rev., 425 N.J. Super. 

187, 191 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting Campbell Soup Co. v. Bd. of Rev., 13 N.J. 

431, 435 (1953)). Accordingly, an employee who quits a job without a sufficient 

work-related reason is disqualified from receiving benefits. See Self, 91 N.J. at 

457.

Applying these principles, we find no error in the Board's decision to deny 

benefits. Based on her testimony at the hearing, the Tribunal found claimant 

had "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work." The 

Board adopted that finding, which was supported by substantial credible 

evidence in the record. Moreover, the Board's determination that claimant's 
7

A-4173-19

reason for leaving work did not constitute good cause attributed to the work is 

consistent with well-established law.

The Tribunal had an opportunity to consider whether claimant's

resignation was due to her husband's loss of employment and their decision to 

relocate to Florida or to her employer's plan to retire some undetermined time 

in the future. Given claimant's testimony that her employer's retirement plans 

were not definite, no one had told her she was losing her job, no one had told 

her she would lose her job when a new dentist arrived, and she would have 

continued to work for her employer had her husband not lost his job, and her 

repeated assertion she left her job because her husband had lost his job and they 

wanted to relocate to Florida, we discern no error in the ultimate determination 

claimant had "left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such 

work."

Claimant's remaining argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant further 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.