In re the Claim of Haft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Haft

174 A.D.2d 950, 571 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9211

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

DecidedJune 27, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 950 (In re the Claim of Haft) 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 Haft, 174 A.D.2d 950, 571 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 29, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the [951]*951finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his job because he had been making harassing telephone calls to his supervisor and that his actions constituted misconduct sufficient to warrant the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Levick [Ross], 53 AD2d 950, appeal dismissed, 42 NY2d 909, lv denied 42 NY2d 811; Matter of Martin [Catherwood] 33 AD2d 815). To the extent that claimant’s version of the facts differed from the employer’s version, this presented only a question of fact which was within the exclusive province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged— Roberts], 113 AD2d 997). Additionally, there is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, 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 October 29, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the [951]*951finding by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his job because he had been making harassing telephone calls to his supervisor and that his actions constituted misconduct sufficient to warrant the denial of his application for unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Levick [Ross], 53 AD2d 950, appeal dismissed, 42 NY2d 909, lv denied 42 NY2d 811; Matter of Martin [Catherwood] 33 AD2d 815). To the extent that claimant’s version of the facts differed from the employer’s version, this presented only a question of fact which was within the exclusive province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged— Roberts], 113 AD2d 997). Additionally, there is also substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements in order to obtain benefits (see, Matter of Muller [Levine], 50 AD2d 1005, lv denied 40 NY2d 806).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 950, 571 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-haft-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack