In re the Claim of Frazier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Frazier

273 A.D.2d 676, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7205

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

DecidedJune 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 676 (In re the Claim of Frazier) 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 Frazier, 273 A.D.2d 676, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 16, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a merchandising manager under disqualifying circumstances. The record reveals that claimant refused to comply with his supervisor’s directives and acted in contravention of the employer’s instructions. Under such circumstances, claimant’s repeated failure to abide by the employer’s reasonable requests constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cramer [Gerel Corp. — Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 725). Although claimant disagreed with the employer’s version of the events that led to his dismissal, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Pasquarosa [Euro Brokers — Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 903, 904).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 16, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a merchandising manager under disqualifying circumstances. The record reveals that claimant refused to comply with his supervisor’s directives and acted in contravention of the employer’s instructions. Under such circumstances, claimant’s repeated failure to abide by the employer’s reasonable requests constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cramer [Gerel Corp. — Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 725). Although claimant disagreed with the employer’s version of the events that led to his dismissal, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Pasquarosa [Euro Brokers — Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 903, 904).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 676, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-frazier-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack