In re the Claim of Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hill

172 A.D.2d 954, 568 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4567

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

DecidedApril 11, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 954 (In re the Claim of Hill) 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 Hill, 172 A.D.2d 954, 568 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 22, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The agreement which claimant entered into following a disciplinary grievance set forth the conditions for claimant’s continued employment, one of which was his participation in a company-sponsored treatment program. The agreement also specifically provided that he would be subject to immediate termination if he again tested positive for drugs. The evidence established that claimant failed to follow through with the program and that he subsequently tested positive for drugs. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (cf, Matter of Restifo [Roberts], 88 AD2d 1045). We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, 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 January 22, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The agreement which claimant entered into following a disciplinary grievance set forth the conditions for claimant’s continued employment, one of which was his participation in a company-sponsored treatment program. The agreement also specifically provided that he would be subject to immediate termination if he again tested positive for drugs. The evidence established that claimant failed to follow through with the program and that he subsequently tested positive for drugs. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (cf, Matter of Restifo [Roberts], 88 AD2d 1045). We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 954, 568 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hill-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack