In re the Claim of Bisson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bisson

170 A.D.2d 738, 566 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 738 (In re the Claim of Bisson) 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 Bisson, 170 A.D.2d 738, 566 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 10, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence establishes that the employer’s request that claimant work an additional eight hours per year to take inventory was not unreasonable and that her reasons for refusal to work the overtime were not compelling. She had also been specifically advised by her employer that her refusal [739]*739would result in her being discharged (see, Matter of Graziose [Levine], 50 AD2d 1030; Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 AD2d 1006). Accordingly, the conclusion that claimant’s employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that her actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, supra).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Crew III and Harvey, 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 August 10, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence establishes that the employer’s request that claimant work an additional eight hours per year to take inventory was not unreasonable and that her reasons for refusal to work the overtime were not compelling. She had also been specifically advised by her employer that her refusal [739]*739would result in her being discharged (see, Matter of Graziose [Levine], 50 AD2d 1030; Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 AD2d 1006). Accordingly, the conclusion that claimant’s employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that her actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, supra).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 738, 566 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bisson-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack