In re the Claim of Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cohen

25 A.D.2d 906, 269 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4333

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 6, 1966·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant, a teacher, disqualified for benefits, upon a finding of misconduct in connection' with his employment (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 3) in that, at a faculty meeting, his contentious conduct, his refusal to recognize orderly procedures and his obscene language were such as to constitute “gross insubordination ” and “ misconduct within the purview of the Unemployment Insurance Law.” The board’s findings, based, as they were, upon proof which the board was at liberty to aeeept and credit and whieh we cannot assay as less than substantial evidence, were within the area of decision committed to the board and hence may not be disturbed by us. There was no deprivation of due process upon the hearing or otherwise nor was any right of claimant arbitrarily or unreasonably curtailed. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. j., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant, a teacher, disqualified for benefits, upon a finding of misconduct in connection' with his employment (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 3) in that, at a faculty meeting, his contentious conduct, his refusal to recognize orderly procedures and his obscene language were such as to constitute “gross insubordination ” and “ misconduct within the purview of the Unemployment Insurance Law.” The board’s findings, based, as they were, upon proof which the board was at liberty to aeeept and credit and whieh we cannot assay as less than substantial evidence, were within the area of decision committed to the board and hence may not be disturbed by us. There was no deprivation of due process upon the hearing or otherwise nor was any right of claimant arbitrarily or unreasonably curtailed. Decision affirmed, without costs.

Gibson, P. j., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Cohen, 25 A.D.2d 906, 269 N.Y.S.2d 541, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4333 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

25 A.D.2d 906 (In re the Claim of Cohen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related