In re the Claim of Block

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Block

232 A.D.2d 713, 647 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10078

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 713 (In re the Claim of Block) 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 Block, 232 A.D.2d 713, 647 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 15, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a respiratory therapy technician for a surgical supply company. He was terminated from his position when it was discovered that claimant misrepresented visiting the homes of patients to check on respiratory equipment, submitted false reports concerning these visits and sought reimbursement for business expenses never actually incurred. The Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

The employer’s director of respiratory therapy testified that he discovered that claimant had not visited patients’ homes to check on equipment when numerous patients reported that claimant had not been to their homes since the date their equipment was installed, but that claimant’s reports indicated [714]*714otherwise. He stated that the employer hired a private investigator who followed claimant on a particular day and found that claimant did not visit patients, but went home. He stated that claimant submitted false reports for such visits and submitted business expenses for reimbursement. While claimant denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he was not required to visit patients, his testimony merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Rios [Pine Hill Trailways—Sweeney], 228 AD2d 760; Matter of Hibbard [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 698). Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, 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 March 15, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a respiratory therapy technician for a surgical supply company. He was terminated from his position when it was discovered that claimant misrepresented visiting the homes of patients to check on respiratory equipment, submitted false reports concerning these visits and sought reimbursement for business expenses never actually incurred. The Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

The employer’s director of respiratory therapy testified that he discovered that claimant had not visited patients’ homes to check on equipment when numerous patients reported that claimant had not been to their homes since the date their equipment was installed, but that claimant’s reports indicated [714]*714otherwise. He stated that the employer hired a private investigator who followed claimant on a particular day and found that claimant did not visit patients, but went home. He stated that claimant submitted false reports for such visits and submitted business expenses for reimbursement. While claimant denied any wrongdoing and claimed that he was not required to visit patients, his testimony merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Rios [Pine Hill Trailways—Sweeney], 228 AD2d 760; Matter of Hibbard [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 698). Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 713, 647 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-block-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack