In re the Claim of Lange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lange

178 A.D.2d 891, 577 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16870

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 1991·Published

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 19, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant lost his job as an automobile salesperson when he would not make certain telephone calls as requested by his sales manager. While claimant testified that he did not like to make these types of calls, the record establishes that the manager’s request was a reasonable one due to the fact that business was very slow and it was a means to promote [892] business. In addition, the request did not require claimant to do anything unexpected of a salesperson (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759). Under these circumstances, the conclusion that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, supra; Matter of Flores [Levine] 50 AD2d 1006, 1007).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, 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 19, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant lost his job as an automobile salesperson when he would not make certain telephone calls as requested by his sales manager. While claimant testified that he did not like to make these types of calls, the record establishes that the manager’s request was a reasonable one due to the fact that business was very slow and it was a means to promote [892] business. In addition, the request did not require claimant to do anything unexpected of a salesperson (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759). Under these circumstances, the conclusion that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, supra; Matter of Flores [Levine] 50 AD2d 1006, 1007).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Lange, 178 A.D.2d 891, 577 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

178 A.D.2d 891 (In re the Claim of Lange) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related