In Re the Claim of Boulware

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Claim of Boulware

393 N.E.2d 487, 47 N.Y.2d 928, 419 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2180

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 393 N.E.2d 487 (In Re the Claim of Boulware) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Boulware, 393 N.E.2d 487, 47 N.Y.2d 928, 419 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2180 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant’s discharge resulted from misconduct in connection with his employment. The board was entitled to find that claimant’s conduct, in placing an uncovered paint can beneath his desk barely one day after he had received an explicit injunction not to leave open cans' of paint in the office, was not merely inadvertent but a volitional act in disregard of his employer’s specific instruction to the detriment of the latter’s interest. (See Matter of Norman [Ross], 53 AD2d 950; Matter of McGlynn [Levine], 52 AD2d 709).

*930 Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s determination that claimant’s discharge resulted from misconduct in connection with his employment. The board was entitled to find that claimant’s conduct, in placing an uncovered paint can beneath his desk barely one day after he had received an explicit injunction not to leave open cans' of paint in the office, was not merely inadvertent but a volitional act in disregard of his employer’s specific instruction to the detriment of the latter’s interest. (See Matter of Norman [Ross], 53 AD2d 950; Matter of McGlynn [Levine], 52 AD2d 709).

*930 Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 N.E.2d 487, 47 N.Y.2d 928, 419 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-boulware-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack