In re the Claim of Dunlop

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dunlop

210 A.D.2d 722, 621 N.Y.S.2d 928

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 722 (In re the Claim of Dunlop) 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 Dunlop, 210 A.D.2d 722, 621 N.Y.S.2d 928 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 12, 1993, 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 Board reopened its prior decision in claimant’s case solely for the purpose of deciding whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (1983 WL 44294, 79 Civ 5899). Once it determined that there were no substantial violations, the Board adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant lost his job through misconduct and did not consider the merits of claimant’s case. On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment; accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, 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 November 12, 1993, 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 Board reopened its prior decision in claimant’s case solely for the purpose of deciding whether there had been compliance with the procedural safeguards set forth in the consent judgment of Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (1983 WL 44294, 79 Civ 5899). Once it determined that there were no substantial violations, the Board adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant lost his job through misconduct and did not consider the merits of claimant’s case. On this appeal, claimant fails to allege any procedural errors covered by the terms of the consent judgment; accordingly, the Board’s decision must be upheld.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 722, 621 N.Y.S.2d 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dunlop-nyappdiv-1994.