In re the Claim of Guzzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guzzi

49 A.D.2d 986, 375 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11308

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 986 (In re the Claim of Guzzi) 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 Guzzi, 49 A.D.2d 986, 375 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 25, 1974, which adopted a referee’s decision sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner that the claimant was disqualified from benefits upon the ground of misconduct. The claimant was discharged by the employer because he was absent from work on May 6 and May 7, 1974 after having been warned that his absenteeism was excessive. The warning to the claimant was to the effect that he had to have a better attendance record. The claimant contended that his last absence was due to circumstances beyond his control because of the illness of another family member. However, the record at most created a question of fact for the board as to the necessity for the absence and the finding that there was no compelling necessity for absence is supported by the claimant’s testimony as to the family circumstance. Continued absence without a compelling reason after a warning by the employer is substantial evidence of misconduct. (Cf. Matter of Rivera [Levine], 47 AD2d 569.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Koreman, Main and Reynolds, 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 October 25, 1974, which adopted a referee’s decision sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner that the claimant was disqualified from benefits upon the ground of misconduct. The claimant was discharged by the employer because he was absent from work on May 6 and May 7, 1974 after having been warned that his absenteeism was excessive. The warning to the claimant was to the effect that he had to have a better attendance record. The claimant contended that his last absence was due to circumstances beyond his control because of the illness of another family member. However, the record at most created a question of fact for the board as to the necessity for the absence and the finding that there was no compelling necessity for absence is supported by the claimant’s testimony as to the family circumstance. Continued absence without a compelling reason after a warning by the employer is substantial evidence of misconduct. (Cf. Matter of Rivera [Levine], 47 AD2d 569.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Koreman, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 986, 375 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guzzi-nyappdiv-1975.