In re the Claim of Lang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lang

233 A.D.2d 650, 649 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11720

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D.2d 650 (In re the Claim of Lang) 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 Lang, 233 A.D.2d 650, 649 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 30, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a sales clerk at a retail store until he was discharged after leaving work early and refusing to respond to his supervisor’s questions as to why he was leaving before the end of his shift. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had been terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. The refusal to adhere to reasonable work hours constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Cassaro [Sweeney], 221 AD2d 790). The Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the record and will not be disturbed.

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 October 30, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a sales clerk at a retail store until he was discharged after leaving work early and refusing to respond to his supervisor’s questions as to why he was leaving before the end of his shift. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had been terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. The refusal to adhere to reasonable work hours constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Cassaro [Sweeney], 221 AD2d 790). The Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence in the record and will not be disturbed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 650, 649 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lang-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack