In re the Claim of Harpule

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Harpule

241 A.D.2d 610, 660 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7225

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 610 (In re the Claim of Harpule) 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 Harpule, 241 A.D.2d 610, 660 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a camera operator after he refused to comply with his supervisor’s instructions to increase his cleaning of the processing machine from three times to five times a week. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant’s refusal was insubordinate and constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Sweat [Children’s Home of Poughkeepsie—Hudacs], 198 AD2d 695). Although claimant testified that he was unable to clean the machine as directed due to a medical condition, his claim was unsubstantiated by any supporting medical evidence (see, Matter of Krinsky [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 659).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, 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 2, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a camera operator after he refused to comply with his supervisor’s instructions to increase his cleaning of the processing machine from three times to five times a week. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant’s refusal was insubordinate and constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Sweat [Children’s Home of Poughkeepsie—Hudacs], 198 AD2d 695). Although claimant testified that he was unable to clean the machine as directed due to a medical condition, his claim was unsubstantiated by any supporting medical evidence (see, Matter of Krinsky [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 659).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 610, 660 N.Y.S.2d 78, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-harpule-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack