In re the Claim of Chaudry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Chaudry

171 A.D.2d 912, 566 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 912 (In re the Claim of Chaudry) 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 Chaudry, 171 A.D.2d 912, 566 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 20, 1989, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The record establishes that claimant’s employment was terminated because he refused to turn over to the employer a document relevant to the employer’s investigation of possible wrongdoing by some of claimant’s co-workers. Claimant’s refusal was based on the fact that the document would reveal his source and he was afraid that reprisals would be taken against that person. Although claimant’s actions were in violation of a company rule concerning investigations, he did provide the employer with enough information to obtain the document from other sources. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s actions did not rise to the level of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and the decision in claimant’s favor must be upheld (see, Matter of Garcia [Haller Plastics Corp. — Roberts], 104 AD2d 675; cf., Matter of Marquez [Roberts] 107 AD2d 959; Matter of Fisher [Levine], 49 AD2d 787).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, 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 October 20, 1989, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The record establishes that claimant’s employment was terminated because he refused to turn over to the employer a document relevant to the employer’s investigation of possible wrongdoing by some of claimant’s co-workers. Claimant’s refusal was based on the fact that the document would reveal his source and he was afraid that reprisals would be taken against that person. Although claimant’s actions were in violation of a company rule concerning investigations, he did provide the employer with enough information to obtain the document from other sources. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s actions did not rise to the level of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and the decision in claimant’s favor must be upheld (see, Matter of Garcia [Haller Plastics Corp. — Roberts], 104 AD2d 675; cf., Matter of Marquez [Roberts] 107 AD2d 959; Matter of Fisher [Levine], 49 AD2d 787).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 912, 566 N.Y.S.2d 784, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-chaudry-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack