In re the Claim of Caravan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Caravan

179 A.D.2d 972, 579 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 856

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 972 (In re the Claim of Caravan) 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 Caravan, 179 A.D.2d 972, 579 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Initially, we do not find that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board abused its discretion in rejecting claimant’s [973]*973application to reopen the Board’s prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (cf., Matter of Schwartz [Creative Tutoring— Roberts], 91 AD2d 778). In any event, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was discharged due to misconduct because he failed to follow the proper procedures when notifying his employer that he would be absent (see, Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 80 AD2d 969). Claimant’s contentions to the contrary merely raise questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 AD2d 515). There is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits and that the payments he received were recoverable, as well as the imposition of a forfeiture of future effective benefit days (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, 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

Initially, we do not find that the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board abused its discretion in rejecting claimant’s [973]*973application to reopen the Board’s prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (cf., Matter of Schwartz [Creative Tutoring— Roberts], 91 AD2d 778). In any event, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was discharged due to misconduct because he failed to follow the proper procedures when notifying his employer that he would be absent (see, Matter of Michelfelder [Ross], 80 AD2d 969). Claimant’s contentions to the contrary merely raise questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Woods [Ross], 54 AD2d 515). There is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits and that the payments he received were recoverable, as well as the imposition of a forfeiture of future effective benefit days (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 972, 579 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-caravan-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack