Claimant worked as a sanitation inspector for the employer from 1986 until April 14, 1993, when misconduct charges were preferred against him. In the midst of a hearing on the charges held pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, the parties entered into a stipulation wherein claimant agreed to resign and the employer agreed to drop the charges and, inter alia, inform any prospective employers that claimant had resigned for personal reasons. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the initial determination disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause and referred the question of whether claimant should be disqualified because of loss of employment through misconduct to the local office for further consideration.
Because the Board may remit a case "for such purposes as it may direct" (Labor Law § 621), our inquiry is limited to whether it abused its discretion in this instance ( see, Matter of Rongovian Embassy [Sweeney], 239 A.D.2d 779). We conclude that it did not as there is precedent that a claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her position in the face of disciplinary charges may qualify for unemployment benefits if the actions did not amount to misconduct ( see, Matter of La Rocca [New York City Dept. of Transp. — Roberts], 59 N.Y.2d 683; Matter of Bateman [Rensselaer County Sheriff's Dept. — Hartnett], 147 A.D.2d 738; Matter of Guerin [Roberts], 88 A.D.2d 1018, lv denied 57 N.Y.2d 604).
White, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.