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

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 862 (In re the Claim of Hoffman) 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 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 862, 564 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hoffman-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack