In re the Claim of Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hoffman

169 A.D.2d 862, 564 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 3, 1991·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant used his employer’s State sales tax exemption certificate without permission to purchase a refrigerator for his own personal use. Although claimant eventually paid the sales tax due when the employer found out what he had done, claimant admitted that he knew he was not allowed to use the certificate for his own use. Under the circumstances, the determination disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to his misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Hill [Coca Cola Bottling Co.—Roberts] 91 AD2d 770, 771, lv denied 59 NY2d 601; Matter of Cirlin [Ross] 70 AD2d 1030; Matter of Fata [Levine] 52 AD2d 694).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., 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 October 2, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant used his employer’s State sales tax exemption certificate without permission to purchase a refrigerator for his own personal use. Although claimant eventually paid the sales tax due when the employer found out what he had done, claimant admitted that he knew he was not allowed to use the certificate for his own use. Under the circumstances, the determination disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to his misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Hill [Coca Cola Bottling Co.—Roberts] 91 AD2d 770, 771, lv denied 59 NY2d 601; Matter of Cirlin [Ross] 70 AD2d 1030; Matter of Fata [Levine] 52 AD2d 694).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Hoffman, 169 A.D.2d 862, 564 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

169 A.D.2d 862 (In re the Claim of Hoffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related