In re the Claim of Akhtar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Akhtar

224 A.D.2d 907, 638 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1512

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 907 (In re the Claim of Akhtar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Akhtar, 224 A.D.2d 907, 638 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a patient representative at a hospital. His employment was terminated after he reportedly fondled and kissed a co-worker’s 12-year-old daughter. The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s (hereinafter ALJ) decision and denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that he was terminated for misconduct. Upon reviewing the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. At the [908]*908hearing before the ALJ, a hospital representative testified that she interviewed and obtained statements from the child; the child told the representative that claimant kissed her and touched her "in her private parts”. We reject claimant’s contention that the Board improperly based its decision upon hearsay testimony (see, Matter of Malliet [Levine], 52 AD2d 1026) and conclude that the hearsay evidence, coupled with claimant’s admission that he kissed the child on the cheek, fully support the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a patient representative at a hospital. His employment was terminated after he reportedly fondled and kissed a co-worker’s 12-year-old daughter. The Board reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s (hereinafter ALJ) decision and denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that he was terminated for misconduct. Upon reviewing the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. At the [908]*908hearing before the ALJ, a hospital representative testified that she interviewed and obtained statements from the child; the child told the representative that claimant kissed her and touched her "in her private parts”. We reject claimant’s contention that the Board improperly based its decision upon hearsay testimony (see, Matter of Malliet [Levine], 52 AD2d 1026) and conclude that the hearsay evidence, coupled with claimant’s admission that he kissed the child on the cheek, fully support the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 907, 638 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-akhtar-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack