You are here: / / INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD...

INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.

The Third Department determined claimant could not use his inability to meet the requirements of his employment agreement as good cause for leaving his employment. Claimant agreed to provide his own vehicle for work. After an accident he no longer had access to a vehicle. The loss of his vehicle was deemed not to constitute good cause:

The Board determined that the employment agreement, wherein claimant agreed to provide his own vehicle, was not controlling. On the record before us, we disagree with the Board’s conclusion that claimant left his employment with good cause. Although claimant’s testimony constituted substantial evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the loss of the use of the vehicle, it was error to find that this constituted substantial evidence that his separation from his employment was for good cause. We note that claimant admitted that he shared responsibility for the accident with the other driver and that he had entered into a written employment agreement whereby he agreed to provide his own vehicle and keep it in good operational condition. Further, and importantly, he also agreed that if the vehicle became disabled, he would replace it expeditiously. It is well established that “once the terms of employment have been agreed upon, such terms cannot thereafter be invoked as valid grounds for quitting” … . Inasmuch as claimant was aware of the terms of his employment and accepted same, we conclude that he could not later invoke his inability to meet the requirements of his employment, regardless of the circumstances or fault surrounding the loss of the use of his vehicle, as good cause for leaving his employment … . Matter of Brown (Express Delivery LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 00359, 3rd Dept 1-19-17

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT)/EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, INABILITY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT)

You might also like
THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER WAS A “STRUCTURE” AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN “REPAIR” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); A SHELF ROUTINELY USED AS A PLATFORM TO ACCESS THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER COULD CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 (THIRD DEPT).
COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD COMMITTED MURDER, SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE FILM ABOUT HIM WAS INTENDED TO BE FICTIONAL AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PURCHASE DEALER QUANTITIES OF COCAINE FROM A DEALER (SANCHEZ) AND COOKED CRACK COCAINE FOR THAT DEALER WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO ORGANIZE OR LEAD THE DEALER’S DISTRIBUTION NETWORK; CONSPIRACY CONVICTON REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER IS INCARCERATED FOR ASSAULTING MOTHER WHEN SHE WAS SEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT, FATHER IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER VISITATION WITH THE CHILD, WHICH NEED NOT INCLUDE CONTACT VISITATION, IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD; IT IS THE MOTHER’S BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE VISITATION WOULD BE HARMFUL (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ZONING BOARD DID NOT SET OUT A FACTUAL BASIS FOR FAILING TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PRECEDENT... COMPUTER DESKTOP ENGINEER NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF JOB PLACEMENT SERVICE.