In re the Claim of Burger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Burger

253 A.D.2d 953, 677 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9513

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 953 (In re the Claim of Burger) 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 Burger, 253 A.D.2d 953, 677 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 7, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his position as a district manager of a thrift shop after three weeks of employment because he refused to work on Saturdays. We affirm the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged due to misconduct. Representatives of the employer testified that claimant was informed during both of his interviews that Saturdays were mandatory working days because they were the busiest days in the stores. Claimant’s testimony to the contrary merely created a credibility issue, which the Board was free to resolve against him (see, Matter of Wright [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 668, 669). Given that the failure to abide by a reasonable request of the employer may constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Corso [Hudacs], 201 AD2d 817), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 February 7, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his position as a district manager of a thrift shop after three weeks of employment because he refused to work on Saturdays. We affirm the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged due to misconduct. Representatives of the employer testified that claimant was informed during both of his interviews that Saturdays were mandatory working days because they were the busiest days in the stores. Claimant’s testimony to the contrary merely created a credibility issue, which the Board was free to resolve against him (see, Matter of Wright [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 668, 669). Given that the failure to abide by a reasonable request of the employer may constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Corso [Hudacs], 201 AD2d 817), we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 953, 677 N.Y.S.2d 825, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-burger-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack