In re the Claim of Chen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Chen

188 A.D.2d 812, 591 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 812 (In re the Claim of Chen) 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 Chen, 188 A.D.2d 812, 591 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 1, 1991, which, upon reconsideration, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a service representative for a company which provided television services for hospital patients for a fee. On June 24, 1992, claimant provided complimentary television services to a patient. He did so even though he was aware of his employer’s rule that any free services required specific authorization by a supervisor. When contacted by his supervisor, claimant admitted to providing this free service but testified that he thought the patient was entitled to it because he was an employee of the hospital. Testimony by both the supervisor and manager of television services revealed that there was no such policy and no one in authority ever gave claimant such information. The fact that claimant gave conflicting testimony in this regard merely presented a question of credibility which was within the sole province of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 AD2d 934; Matter of Brewer [Levine] 53 AD2d 751). The record also reveals that claimant had been reprimanded on two previous occasions for providing complimentary television services to patients. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that his actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fisher [Roberts] 138 AD2d 912; Matter of Green [Levine] 53 AD2d 782; Matter of Risdell [Levine] 52 AD2d 1025).

Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, 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 August 1, 1991, which, upon reconsideration, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a service representative for a company which provided television services for hospital patients for a fee. On June 24, 1992, claimant provided complimentary television services to a patient. He did so even though he was aware of his employer’s rule that any free services required specific authorization by a supervisor. When contacted by his supervisor, claimant admitted to providing this free service but testified that he thought the patient was entitled to it because he was an employee of the hospital. Testimony by both the supervisor and manager of television services revealed that there was no such policy and no one in authority ever gave claimant such information. The fact that claimant gave conflicting testimony in this regard merely presented a question of credibility which was within the sole province of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 AD2d 934; Matter of Brewer [Levine] 53 AD2d 751). The record also reveals that claimant had been reprimanded on two previous occasions for providing complimentary television services to patients. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that his actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fisher [Roberts] 138 AD2d 912; Matter of Green [Levine] 53 AD2d 782; Matter of Risdell [Levine] 52 AD2d 1025).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 812, 591 N.Y.S.2d 89, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-chen-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack