In re the Claim of Inman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Inman

241 A.D.2d 619, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 3, 1997·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 21, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a waitress at a family restaurant as a result of customer complaints regarding her rude attitude and use of profane language. Claimant acknowledged that prior to this incident she had been warned about her inappropriate behavior and attitude toward customers. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was terminated due to misconduct and we find no reason to disturb it (see, Matter of MacGilfrey [Sweeney], 223 AD2d 894; Matter of Schneider [Garden City Union Free School Dist.—Hudacs], 201 AD2d 811). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 21, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a waitress at a family restaurant as a result of customer complaints regarding her rude attitude and use of profane language. Claimant acknowledged that prior to this incident she had been warned about her inappropriate behavior and attitude toward customers. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was terminated due to misconduct and we find no reason to disturb it (see, Matter of MacGilfrey [Sweeney], 223 AD2d 894; Matter of Schneider [Garden City Union Free School Dist.—Hudacs], 201 AD2d 811). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Inman, 241 A.D.2d 619, 660 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7207 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

241 A.D.2d 619 (In re the Claim of Inman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related