In re the Claim of Brandsema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Brandsema

173 A.D.2d 998, 570 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7553

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

DecidedMay 9, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 998 (In re the Claim of Brandsema) 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 Brandsema, 173 A.D.2d 998, 570 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 28, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemploy[999]*999ment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an X-ray runner for a hospital, was unable to work when he suffered back and neck injuries after an automobile accident. After a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant failed to follow customary procedure and the specific instructions of his supervisor and call in every other week during his absence to report his progress. The Administrative Law Judge, holding that he was bound by the arbitrator’s finding, then ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because such behavior amounted to misconduct; the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by the arbitrator’s finding of fact, i.e., that claimant failed to comply with the directive of his employer (see, Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717-718). The record therefore contains substantial evidence to support the decision that this behavior amounted to misconduct (see, Matter of Boulware [Ross] 47 NY2d 928, 929; Matter of Darrisaw [Levine] 51 AD2d 1098).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, 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 September 28, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemploy[999]*999ment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an X-ray runner for a hospital, was unable to work when he suffered back and neck injuries after an automobile accident. After a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant failed to follow customary procedure and the specific instructions of his supervisor and call in every other week during his absence to report his progress. The Administrative Law Judge, holding that he was bound by the arbitrator’s finding, then ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because such behavior amounted to misconduct; the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by the arbitrator’s finding of fact, i.e., that claimant failed to comply with the directive of his employer (see, Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717-718). The record therefore contains substantial evidence to support the decision that this behavior amounted to misconduct (see, Matter of Boulware [Ross] 47 NY2d 928, 929; Matter of Darrisaw [Levine] 51 AD2d 1098).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 998, 570 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brandsema-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack