Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Terry L. Doane, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 140 A.D.3d 1497
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Terry L. Doane, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Judges: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 1497–1498

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Terry L. Doane, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
[34 NYS3d 268]

Opinion:
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 24, 2015, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
Claimant retired from his full-time position as a glass glazier in February 2014. He thereafter agreed to return to work part time in May 2014. Claimant left this job after only working for a few days, however, citing the fact that he was being paid at a lower hourly rate than the rate he was paid before he retired. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. "It is well settled that dissatisfaction with wages does not constitute good cause for leaving employment for purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits" (Matter of Kelly [A-1 Tech., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1405, 1406 [2009] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Poulin [Commissioner of Labor], 131 AD3d 1319, 1319 [2015]). Here, claimant admittedly left his employment due to his dissatisfaction with his hourly rate of pay. Although claimant contends that the reduction in his pay rate constituted a substantial change in the terms and conditions of his employment (see Matter of Heller [Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 83 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2011]), the employer's representative testified that claimant was informed of the lower rate of pay at the time he accepted the part-time job offer. Claimant's conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Cunningham [Commissioner of Labor], 126 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2015]; Matter of Guido [Commissioner of Labor], 108 AD3d 919, 920 [2013]). As substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, it will not be disturbed.
Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.