In re the Claim of Alves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Alves

79 A.D.2d 793, 435 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14196

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 793 (In re the Claim of Alves) 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 Alves, 79 A.D.2d 793, 435 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 27, 1979, which affirmed a determination of an Administrative Law Judge disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. Following the filing of claimant’s brief, the Attorney-General advised the court by letter that a review of the record indicated that claimant’s termination [794]*794was based on his “overall attitude and performance” and, furthermore, that there was some doubt as to whether any nonhearsay testimony could be found in the record to support the board’s determination. Accordingly, the court was informed that no brief would be filed on behalf of the Industrial Commissioner. The employer does not appear on the appeal. Determination of appeal withheld for 20 days pending notification as to whether an application for reopening will be made to the board (see Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 79 AD2d 791). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.

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 June 27, 1979, which affirmed a determination of an Administrative Law Judge disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. Following the filing of claimant’s brief, the Attorney-General advised the court by letter that a review of the record indicated that claimant’s termination [794]*794was based on his “overall attitude and performance” and, furthermore, that there was some doubt as to whether any nonhearsay testimony could be found in the record to support the board’s determination. Accordingly, the court was informed that no brief would be filed on behalf of the Industrial Commissioner. The employer does not appear on the appeal. Determination of appeal withheld for 20 days pending notification as to whether an application for reopening will be made to the board (see Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 79 AD2d 791). Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Casey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 793, 435 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-alves-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack