Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Bruno Rosinke, Appellant. Carl Zeiss, Inc., Respondent; John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-11-16
Citations: 221 A.D.2d 794
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Bruno Rosinke, Appellant. Carl Zeiss, Inc., Respondent; John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 794–794

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Bruno Rosinke, Appellant. Carl Zeiss, Inc., Respondent; John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
[633 NYS2d 430]

Opinion:
—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 1995, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.
Claimant left his position as a stock clerk of 20 years to take advantage of an early retirement option offered by his employer and because a co-worker with whom he commuted to and from work took advantage of this option. After a hearing, the Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits upon the basis that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Claimant contends that he was justified in leaving his employment and, therefore, the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. Given that claimant voluntarily chose the early retirement option and failed to seriously pursue the alternative of public transportation prior to resigning from his position, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause {see, Matter of Rego [Hartnett], 165 AD2d 942).
Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.