In re the Claim of Conenna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Conenna

205 A.D.2d 818, 615 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5891

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 818 (In re the Claim of Conenna) 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 Conenna, 205 A.D.2d 818, 615 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1992, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The Board found that claimant was discharged for failing to submit documentation which he knew was a required condition for his employment and that claimant misrepresented certain essential facts to the employer. Accordingly, the Board concluded that claimant engaged in misconduct and lost his employment under disqualifying conditions. Insofar as the Board’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld. Claimant’s contentions to the contrary basically revolve around matters of credibility which were for the Board to resolve.

Mercure, J. P., White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, 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 October 2, 1992, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The Board found that claimant was discharged for failing to submit documentation which he knew was a required condition for his employment and that claimant misrepresented certain essential facts to the employer. Accordingly, the Board concluded that claimant engaged in misconduct and lost his employment under disqualifying conditions. Insofar as the Board’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld. Claimant’s contentions to the contrary basically revolve around matters of credibility which were for the Board to resolve.

Mercure, J. P., White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 818, 615 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-conenna-nyappdiv-1994.