In re the Claim of Helinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Helinski

213 A.D.2d 862, 623 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2825

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 862 (In re the Claim of Helinski) 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 Helinski, 213 A.D.2d 862, 623 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 29, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed by Horizon Human Services, Inc. as a senior counselor in a day treatment program. On April 22, 1991, claimant’s direct supervisor gave a critique of claimant’s job performance which indicated a lack of communication skills. Claimant was directed to prepare a corrective plan of action by April 29, 1991. On that date, claimant informed her direct supervisor that she did not agree with the critique and refused to submit a corrective plan of action. Claimant was referred to a senior supervisor, but after two meetings still persisted in her refusal. The supervisor informed claimant that she was jeopardizing her job. When claimant still refused, she was fired.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant’s refusal constituted misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it must be affirmed (see, Matter of Wade [Levine], 50 AD2d 1003).

[863]*863Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White and Yesawich Jr., 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

—Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 29, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed by Horizon Human Services, Inc. as a senior counselor in a day treatment program. On April 22, 1991, claimant’s direct supervisor gave a critique of claimant’s job performance which indicated a lack of communication skills. Claimant was directed to prepare a corrective plan of action by April 29, 1991. On that date, claimant informed her direct supervisor that she did not agree with the critique and refused to submit a corrective plan of action. Claimant was referred to a senior supervisor, but after two meetings still persisted in her refusal. The supervisor informed claimant that she was jeopardizing her job. When claimant still refused, she was fired.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant’s refusal constituted misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it must be affirmed (see, Matter of Wade [Levine], 50 AD2d 1003).

[863]*863Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 862, 623 N.Y.S.2d 425, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-helinski-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack