In re the Claim of Biviano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Biviano

242 A.D.2d 820, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8683

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 820 (In re the Claim of Biviano) 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 Biviano, 242 A.D.2d 820, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 1, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[821]*821Inasmuch as the record as a whole supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that claimant failed to inform her employer that she had ceased performing her assigned duty in connection with the employer’s charge-back program and, further, that such conduct rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Muslo [Levine], 50 AD2d 974; Matter of Longabardi [Levine], 50 AD2d 662, lv denied 38 NY2d 709), the Board’s decision must be affirmed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Peters, 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 July 1, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[821]*821Inasmuch as the record as a whole supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s conclusion that claimant failed to inform her employer that she had ceased performing her assigned duty in connection with the employer’s charge-back program and, further, that such conduct rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Muslo [Levine], 50 AD2d 974; Matter of Longabardi [Levine], 50 AD2d 662, lv denied 38 NY2d 709), the Board’s decision must be affirmed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 820, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-biviano-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack