In re the Claim of Dunn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dunn

240 A.D.2d 801, 659 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6035

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

DecidedJune 5, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 801 (In re the Claim of Dunn) 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 Dunn, 240 A.D.2d 801, 659 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 31, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a door attendant at a condominium complex, was discharged from his employment after his investigation into a noise complaint culminated in claimant improperly entering a condominium unit and engaging in a physical altercation with [802]*802one of the residents. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits upon a finding that he was terminated from his employment due to misconduct and that he made a willful false statement to obtain benefits. The conflicting testimony offered at the hearing merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Thompson [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 614, 615). Given the findings that claimant did not have authority to enter a resident’s home for noise violations and that he omitted significant facts regarding the incident in his log entry, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Redjepi [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 727, 728). Inasmuch as claimant knew that he was fired for misconduct, the Board’s finding that claimant made a willful false statement, along with its decision to assess a recoverable overpayment and reduce his right to receive future benefits, are upheld (see, Matter of Marinetti [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 741). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, 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 May 31, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a door attendant at a condominium complex, was discharged from his employment after his investigation into a noise complaint culminated in claimant improperly entering a condominium unit and engaging in a physical altercation with [802]*802one of the residents. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits upon a finding that he was terminated from his employment due to misconduct and that he made a willful false statement to obtain benefits. The conflicting testimony offered at the hearing merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Thompson [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 614, 615). Given the findings that claimant did not have authority to enter a resident’s home for noise violations and that he omitted significant facts regarding the incident in his log entry, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Redjepi [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 727, 728). Inasmuch as claimant knew that he was fired for misconduct, the Board’s finding that claimant made a willful false statement, along with its decision to assess a recoverable overpayment and reduce his right to receive future benefits, are upheld (see, Matter of Marinetti [Hudacs], 195 AD2d 741). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 801, 659 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dunn-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack