In re the Claim of Elsayed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Elsayed

49 A.D.3d 936, 853 N.Y.2d 391

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.3d 936 (In re the Claim of Elsayed) 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 Elsayed, 49 A.D.3d 936, 853 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was employed as the assistant director of housekeeping for the employer for approximately 20 months. He was discharged in August 2004 after the employer discovered that claimant had failed to identify his most recent employer on his employment application. Claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was ultimately denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the basis that he lost his employment as a result of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. The employment application specifically provides that any misrepresentation made by the applicant would be grounds for the denial of employment or for discharge. Claimant admits that he omitted from the application information about his most recent employer, explaining that he did not think it was necessary to include the previous employer because he had worked there for only a short period of time. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered explanation, omitting information from [937]*937an employment application is sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct and, thus, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see Matter of Dockal [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 1081, 1081 [2006]; Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 939 [2005]). Accordingly, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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

Claimant was employed as the assistant director of housekeeping for the employer for approximately 20 months. He was discharged in August 2004 after the employer discovered that claimant had failed to identify his most recent employer on his employment application. Claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was ultimately denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the basis that he lost his employment as a result of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. The employment application specifically provides that any misrepresentation made by the applicant would be grounds for the denial of employment or for discharge. Claimant admits that he omitted from the application information about his most recent employer, explaining that he did not think it was necessary to include the previous employer because he had worked there for only a short period of time. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered explanation, omitting information from [937]*937an employment application is sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct and, thus, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see Matter of Dockal [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 1081, 1081 [2006]; Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 939 [2005]). Accordingly, the Board’s decision will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 936, 853 N.Y.2d 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-elsayed-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack