In re the Claim of De Scetto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of De Scetto

51 A.D.2d 1100, 381 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1100 (In re the Claim of De Scetto) 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 De Scetto, 51 A.D.2d 1100, 381 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 17, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits. Claimant, a clothing salesman in a retail store, had been warned on April 14 that he would be discharged if his attendance did not improve by June 1. From April 14 to June 2 claimant reported late for work 22 times. He was thereupon discharged. Claimant conceded that his starting time was 9:30 a.m. and admitted that he consistently failed to report to work until 9:45 a.m., allegedly because he had no work to do until then. Claimant’s conduct following the warning in regard to lateness constituted misconduct in connection with his employment (Matter of Greene [Levine] 48 AD2d 747). There is substantial evidence in this record to support the board’s determination (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Roth [Catherwood] 34 AD2d 1081). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and Reynolds, 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 September 17, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining an initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits. Claimant, a clothing salesman in a retail store, had been warned on April 14 that he would be discharged if his attendance did not improve by June 1. From April 14 to June 2 claimant reported late for work 22 times. He was thereupon discharged. Claimant conceded that his starting time was 9:30 a.m. and admitted that he consistently failed to report to work until 9:45 a.m., allegedly because he had no work to do until then. Claimant’s conduct following the warning in regard to lateness constituted misconduct in connection with his employment (Matter of Greene [Levine] 48 AD2d 747). There is substantial evidence in this record to support the board’s determination (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of Roth [Catherwood] 34 AD2d 1081). Decision affirmed, without costs. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1100, 381 N.Y.S.2d 356, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-de-scetto-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack