In re the Claim of Lander

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lander

242 A.D.2d 821, 661 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8635

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 821 (In re the Claim of Lander) 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 Lander, 242 A.D.2d 821, 661 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 1, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision and ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as an assistant dye cutter after she refused to work mandatory overtime because she was tired and stressed. Initially, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board granted claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits. Thereafter, on its own motion, the Board rescinded that decision and found that claimant was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals, contending that her refusal to work overtime did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant was aware at the time she was hired that overtime was a condition of her employment. Consequently, the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Beehan [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 875; Matter of David [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 793; Matter of Sabater [Hudacs], 184 AD2d 953, 954).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, 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Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 1, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision and ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as an assistant dye cutter after she refused to work mandatory overtime because she was tired and stressed. Initially, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board granted claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits. Thereafter, on its own motion, the Board rescinded that decision and found that claimant was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals, contending that her refusal to work overtime did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant was aware at the time she was hired that overtime was a condition of her employment. Consequently, the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Beehan [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 875; Matter of David [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 793; Matter of Sabater [Hudacs], 184 AD2d 953, 954).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 821, 661 N.Y.S.2d 682, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lander-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack