In re the Claim of Belilovsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Belilovsky

181 A.D.2d 936, 580 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 936 (In re the Claim of Belilovsky) 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 Belilovsky, 181 A.D.2d 936, 580 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 20, 1991, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a tool and die maker, was discharged by his employer when he repeatedly refused orders by at least two persons in charge to perform work on another die. After a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant, who had per[937]*937formed the requested task in the past, had been insubordinate and that there was just cause for his dismissal. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and this court are bound by the arbitrator’s factual findings concerning the events which led to claimant’s discharge (see, Matter of Guimarales [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Roberts], 68 NY2d 989, 991; Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717-718). The Board’s conclusion that claimant’s behavior constituted misconduct, thus disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, is not irrational and must be upheld (see, Matter of Guimarales [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Roberts] supra, at 991-992; Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History— Roberts], 103 AD2d 919; Matter of Centineo [Levine] 53 AD2d 759).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Casey, 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 August 20, 1991, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a tool and die maker, was discharged by his employer when he repeatedly refused orders by at least two persons in charge to perform work on another die. After a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant, who had per[937]*937formed the requested task in the past, had been insubordinate and that there was just cause for his dismissal. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and this court are bound by the arbitrator’s factual findings concerning the events which led to claimant’s discharge (see, Matter of Guimarales [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Roberts], 68 NY2d 989, 991; Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717-718). The Board’s conclusion that claimant’s behavior constituted misconduct, thus disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, is not irrational and must be upheld (see, Matter of Guimarales [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Roberts] supra, at 991-992; Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History— Roberts], 103 AD2d 919; Matter of Centineo [Levine] 53 AD2d 759).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 936, 580 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-belilovsky-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack