In re the Claim of Giotis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Giotis

176 A.D.2d 1164, 575 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13760

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 1164 (In re the Claim of Giotis) 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 Giotis, 176 A.D.2d 1164, 575 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 20, 1991, 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 evidence in the record supports the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was insubordinate to his immediate supervisor by refusing to follow the latter’s instructions (see, Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History — Roberts], 103 AD2d 919). The employer’s president also testified that claimant had been [1165]*1165warned in the past regarding his refusal to follow orders. To the extent that claimant’s version of the facts surrounding his dismissal differs from the employer’s version, a question of credibility was presented for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 AD2d 934). Under these circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, 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 February 20, 1991, 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 evidence in the record supports the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was insubordinate to his immediate supervisor by refusing to follow the latter’s instructions (see, Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History — Roberts], 103 AD2d 919). The employer’s president also testified that claimant had been [1165]*1165warned in the past regarding his refusal to follow orders. To the extent that claimant’s version of the facts surrounding his dismissal differs from the employer’s version, a question of credibility was presented for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 AD2d 934). Under these circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 1164, 575 N.Y.S.2d 604, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-giotis-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack