In re the Claim of Hassane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hassane

241 A.D.2d 730, 660 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7466

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 730 (In re the Claim of Hassane) 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 Hassane, 241 A.D.2d 730, 660 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinions

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 19, 1995, 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.

Upon reviewing the restaurant sales receipts for the evening of June 7, 1995, it was discovered that claimant, a waiter, had been double-tipped by four separate customers. Claimant was discharged from his employment for failing to follow the employer’s policy of informing customers that a gratuity had already been added to their bills and to bring it to their attention if they had left a double tip. The evidence presented established that an incident of double tipping was highly unusual and that the gratuity added by the four customers was almost equal to the gratuity which had already been calculated into their bills. Although primarily circumstantial, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Di Maria v Ross, 52 NY2d 771, 772; Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged—Roberts], 113 AD2d 997).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White and Casey, 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 December 19, 1995, 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.

Upon reviewing the restaurant sales receipts for the evening of June 7, 1995, it was discovered that claimant, a waiter, had been double-tipped by four separate customers. Claimant was discharged from his employment for failing to follow the employer’s policy of informing customers that a gratuity had already been added to their bills and to bring it to their attention if they had left a double tip. The evidence presented established that an incident of double tipping was highly unusual and that the gratuity added by the four customers was almost equal to the gratuity which had already been calculated into their bills. Although primarily circumstantial, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences drawn from the evidence presented (see, Matter of Di Maria v Ross, 52 NY2d 771, 772; Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged—Roberts], 113 AD2d 997).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White and Casey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 730, 660 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hassane-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack