In re the Claim of Estrada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Estrada

49 A.D.2d 774, 372 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 774 (In re the Claim of Estrada) 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 Estrada, 49 A.D.2d 774, 372 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 9, 1975, which modified and affirmed the decision of a referee and found claimant disqualified from receiving benefits effective May 1, 1974, because she lost her employment through misconduct. The record shows that claimant was frequently late for work over an extended period of time and that she admittedly had been warned that continued tardiness in reporting for work would result in her discharge. The board’s decision that claimant’s refusal to accelerate her departure from home so as to arrive at work on time constituted misconduct, is a factual determination which is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, 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 May 9, 1975, which modified and affirmed the decision of a referee and found claimant disqualified from receiving benefits effective May 1, 1974, because she lost her employment through misconduct. The record shows that claimant was frequently late for work over an extended period of time and that she admittedly had been warned that continued tardiness in reporting for work would result in her discharge. The board’s decision that claimant’s refusal to accelerate her departure from home so as to arrive at work on time constituted misconduct, is a factual determination which is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 774, 372 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-estrada-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack