In re the Claim of Bissell

199 A.D.2d 699, 605 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11977
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 16, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 699 (In re the Claim of Bissell) 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 Bissell, 199 A.D.2d 699, 605 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

Mikoll, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 14, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits based on the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant lost his employment through misconduct in that claimant invited his employer to discharge him by informing the employer that he did not wish to relocate for his employer, nor to continue to service the employer’s customer, and that he wished to be fired.

Claimant contends that his actions were expressions of dissatisfaction with his employment, and did not constitute a refusal to relocate, and that he would have relocated if ordered to do so. Whether claimant’s behavior rose to the level of misconduct presented a question of fact for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Burke [Glover Bottled Gas Corp.—Roberts], 104 AD2d 702, 703). The Board is empowered to resolve issues of fact and credibility (see, Matter of Leuci [Levine], 51 AD2d 603). In discrediting claimant’s version and in finding that claimant invited his own discharge by refusing to fulfill the conditions of his employment, the Board resolved the credibility issue against claimant. Substantial evidence in the record supports the Board’s finding.

Yesawich Jr., 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

Related

In re the Claim of Lewis
277 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Khasidova
249 A.D.2d 675 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Jones
232 A.D.2d 802 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 699, 605 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bissell-nyappdiv-1993.