In re the Claim of Khasidova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Khasidova

249 A.D.2d 675, 671 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3890

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

DecidedApril 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 675 (In re the Claim of Khasidova) 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 Khasidova, 249 A.D.2d 675, 671 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 31, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she was discharged due to misconduct. Part of claimant’s duties as a computer operator and bookkeeper at a travel agency included paying the office’s rent and making bank deposits. According to the employer, when claimant was confronted about failing to pay one month’s rent and refusing to redo a bank deposit slip, claimant responded by inviting the employer to fire her. Claimant’s conduct of inviting her own discharge, which apparently had occurred on more than one occasion, has been held to constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Bissell [Electronic Data Sys. Corp. — Hudacs], 199 AD2d 699). Claimant’s denial that she made such statements merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, id.). Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Spain 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 March 31, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she was discharged due to misconduct. Part of claimant’s duties as a computer operator and bookkeeper at a travel agency included paying the office’s rent and making bank deposits. According to the employer, when claimant was confronted about failing to pay one month’s rent and refusing to redo a bank deposit slip, claimant responded by inviting the employer to fire her. Claimant’s conduct of inviting her own discharge, which apparently had occurred on more than one occasion, has been held to constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Bissell [Electronic Data Sys. Corp. — Hudacs], 199 AD2d 699). Claimant’s denial that she made such statements merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, id.). Consequently, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 675, 671 N.Y.S.2d 173, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-khasidova-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack