In re the Claim of Doyle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Doyle

27 A.D.2d 879, 278 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.2d 879 (In re the Claim of Doyle) 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 Doyle, 27 A.D.2d 879, 278 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which found (1) claimant disqualified from receiving benefits in that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause by provoking his discharge and (2) a forfeiture of 20 days against future benefits because claimant made a willful misrepresentation. Claimant worked as an oil burner service man for the employer for several years. The board found that complaints had been received from customers concerning the odor of alcohol on claimant’s breath. Claimant was warned about this, the last warning being given approximately one month before his discharge. When he applied for benefits claimant stated he lost his job because work was slow, although he was informed when discharged that it was because he had alcohol on his breath. There is substantial evidence to support the board’s determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which found (1) claimant disqualified from receiving benefits in that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause by provoking his discharge and (2) a forfeiture of 20 days against future benefits because claimant made a willful misrepresentation. Claimant worked as an oil burner service man for the employer for several years. The board found that complaints had been received from customers concerning the odor of alcohol on claimant’s breath. Claimant was warned about this, the last warning being given approximately one month before his discharge. When he applied for benefits claimant stated he lost his job because work was slow, although he was informed when discharged that it was because he had alcohol on his breath. There is substantial evidence to support the board’s determination. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 879, 278 N.Y.S.2d 23, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-doyle-nyappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack