In re the Claim of Bortz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bortz

211 A.D.2d 928, 621 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 225

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 A.D.2d 928 (In re the Claim of Bortz) 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 Bortz, 211 A.D.2d 928, 621 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 24, 1993, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that although claimant was discharged because he was tardy on two occasions without calling his employer, claimant had previously been permitted to arrive to work late without calling and that he had not been warned that he was required to call in when he was late. The Board thus determined that claimant was not aware that his failure to call in his latenesses would lead to the termination of his employment and concluded that his actions did not constitute misconduct. Insofar as there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision, we find no reason to disturb the award of unemployment insurance benefits to claimant.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. 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 June 24, 1993, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board found that although claimant was discharged because he was tardy on two occasions without calling his employer, claimant had previously been permitted to arrive to work late without calling and that he had not been warned that he was required to call in when he was late. The Board thus determined that claimant was not aware that his failure to call in his latenesses would lead to the termination of his employment and concluded that his actions did not constitute misconduct. Insofar as there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s decision, we find no reason to disturb the award of unemployment insurance benefits to claimant.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 928, 621 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bortz-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack