In re the Claim of Brill

53 A.D.2d 797, 385 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13595
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 24, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 53 A.D.2d 797 (In re the Claim of Brill) 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 Brill, 53 A.D.2d 797, 385 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 6, 1975, which adopted and affirmed a referee’s decision sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct. The board found: "Claimant contended that he was not insubordinate and that he was discharged because of his attempt to organize the workers of the employer. This contention is rejected because he was late after warning and more importantly, he was insubordinate to his supervisor who requested him to put down the newspaper he was reading and resume his work. The evidence does not support claimant’s contention that he was discharged because of his attempt to unionize the employees. In the circumstances, his course of action amounted to misconduct in connection with his employment.” The claimant does not dispute the fact that on April 4, 1975 in regard to a comment by his supervisor he told him: "Don’t bother me. Get out of here.” The record further contains evidence that the claimant was not exactly a "model” employee prior to the April 4, 1975 incident. The claimant’s contention that he was discharged because of his "union” activities created at most issues of fact for the board and its finding of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence upon the record as a whole. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Related

In re the Claim of Dorn
193 A.D.2d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Kushner
193 A.D.2d 1043 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Palko
189 A.D.2d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Valentin
103 A.D.2d 919 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.2d 797, 385 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-brill-nyappdiv-1976.