In re the Claim of Demasi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Demasi

211 A.D.2d 935, 621 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 244

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 935 (In re the Claim of Demasi) 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 Demasi, 211 A.D.2d 935, 621 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 27, 1994, 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 sole purpose of reopening the Board’s prior decision in claimant’s case was to determine if there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards enunciated by the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (1983 WL 44294 [US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). Having found no substantial procedural violations, the Board adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant had been terminated from his employment due to misconduct. Given that claimant failed to allege any procedural errors on this appeal, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. 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 January 27, 1994, 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 sole purpose of reopening the Board’s prior decision in claimant’s case was to determine if there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards enunciated by the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (1983 WL 44294 [US Dist Ct, SD NY, Aug. 1, 1983, Carter, J., 79 Civ 5899]). Having found no substantial procedural violations, the Board adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant had been terminated from his employment due to misconduct. Given that claimant failed to allege any procedural errors on this appeal, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 935, 621 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-demasi-nyappdiv-1995.