In re the Claim of Cangiano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cangiano

51 A.D.2d 1078, 381 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11920

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1078 (In re the Claim of Cangiano) 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 Cangiano, 51 A.D.2d 1078, 381 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 30, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment because of misconduct. The determination of misconduct in connection with employment is a factual one to be made by the board, and if supported by substantial evidence, must be affirmed (Matter of Lester [CatherwoodJ 30 AD2d 1025; Labor Law, § 632). On this record the board could find that the actions of this claimant rise to the level of misconduct as contemplated by Matter of James (Levine) (34 NY2d 491). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mahoney, 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 June 30, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment because of misconduct. The determination of misconduct in connection with employment is a factual one to be made by the board, and if supported by substantial evidence, must be affirmed (Matter of Lester [CatherwoodJ 30 AD2d 1025; Labor Law, § 632). On this record the board could find that the actions of this claimant rise to the level of misconduct as contemplated by Matter of James (Levine) (34 NY2d 491). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mahoney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1078, 381 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cangiano-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack