In re the Claim of David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of David

224 A.D.2d 793, 637 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 996

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 793 (In re the Claim of David) 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 David, 224 A.D.2d 793, 637 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 996 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 25, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Our inquiry here is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the issue of disqualification for benefits due to misconduct (see, Labor Law § 593 [3]). What constitutes "good cause” for discharge within the meaning of Labor Law § 593 (3) is a question of fact within the province of the Board if its findings are supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Miller v Catherwood, 30 AD2d 610). Claimant, a warehouse worker, was terminated from his employment after he failed to work a mandatory overtime assignment.

The evidence in the record establishes that claimant’s manager instructed the warehouse workers that they would be required to work overtime on the date in question during several meetings and that claimant responded by indicating at that time he would be available. Although claimant testified that he was misled by his supervisor’s subsequent statement that a memorandum addressing overtime did not apply to the warehouse workers, the supervisor stated that he never told claimant that overtime was not mandatory, but rather that he did not have to confirm his availability as requested in the memorandum. The Board resolved the question of what was said between claimant and his manager accepting the manager’s version. The Board is charged with resolving issues of credibility and we accept its holding. In view thereof, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White 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

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 25, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Our inquiry here is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the issue of disqualification for benefits due to misconduct (see, Labor Law § 593 [3]). What constitutes "good cause” for discharge within the meaning of Labor Law § 593 (3) is a question of fact within the province of the Board if its findings are supported by substantial evidence (Matter of Miller v Catherwood, 30 AD2d 610). Claimant, a warehouse worker, was terminated from his employment after he failed to work a mandatory overtime assignment.

The evidence in the record establishes that claimant’s manager instructed the warehouse workers that they would be required to work overtime on the date in question during several meetings and that claimant responded by indicating at that time he would be available. Although claimant testified that he was misled by his supervisor’s subsequent statement that a memorandum addressing overtime did not apply to the warehouse workers, the supervisor stated that he never told claimant that overtime was not mandatory, but rather that he did not have to confirm his availability as requested in the memorandum. The Board resolved the question of what was said between claimant and his manager accepting the manager’s version. The Board is charged with resolving issues of credibility and we accept its holding. In view thereof, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 793, 637 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-david-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack