In re the Claim of Canter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Canter

228 A.D.2d 842, 644 N.Y.2d 90, 644 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6690

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

DecidedJune 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 842 (In re the Claim of Canter) 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 Canter, 228 A.D.2d 842, 644 N.Y.2d 90, 644 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was terminated from his position as a farm manager for, inter alia, failing to perform his duties. The Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, finding that he was terminated for misconduct. Upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Claimant’s employer, Ger-[843]*843aid Carrus, testified that a number of incidents lead to claimant’s discharge. He stated that claimant could not be found on the job site by the office manager who needed information from him for approval of the payroll. He stated that, as a result of this incident, claimant became abusive and threatened the office manager. Carrus further stated that claimant had instructed another employee to falsify his time card. Finally, Carrus stated that claimant came to work in an intoxicated condition despite prior warnings that he would be fired for such conduct. In view of this testimony, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Spain, 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

Claimant was terminated from his position as a farm manager for, inter alia, failing to perform his duties. The Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, finding that he was terminated for misconduct. Upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Claimant’s employer, Ger-[843]*843aid Carrus, testified that a number of incidents lead to claimant’s discharge. He stated that claimant could not be found on the job site by the office manager who needed information from him for approval of the payroll. He stated that, as a result of this incident, claimant became abusive and threatened the office manager. Carrus further stated that claimant had instructed another employee to falsify his time card. Finally, Carrus stated that claimant came to work in an intoxicated condition despite prior warnings that he would be fired for such conduct. In view of this testimony, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 842, 644 N.Y.2d 90, 644 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-canter-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack