In re the Claim of Dowling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dowling

168 A.D.2d 727, 564 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14784

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 727 (In re the Claim of Dowling) 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 Dowling, 168 A.D.2d 727, 564 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 14, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Even after repeated warnings from his employer, claimant continued to be late for work and, therefore, he was discharged. Claimant not only admits that he was late on several occasions, but he concedes that he was warned that this conduct was unacceptable. Under the circumstances, the determination that claimant’s continued lateness constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Grosso [Levine], 52 AD2d 964).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, 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 August 14, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Even after repeated warnings from his employer, claimant continued to be late for work and, therefore, he was discharged. Claimant not only admits that he was late on several occasions, but he concedes that he was warned that this conduct was unacceptable. Under the circumstances, the determination that claimant’s continued lateness constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Grosso [Levine], 52 AD2d 964).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 727, 564 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dowling-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack