In re the Claim of Larsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Larsen

205 A.D.2d 815, 614 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5809

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 815 (In re the Claim of Larsen) 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 Larsen, 205 A.D.2d 815, 614 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 20, 1993, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was discharged for miscon[816]*816duct because she failed to report to work as scheduled after a disability leave and did not initially contact the employer to explain the absence. Her contention that she had already been discharged by that time merely raised an issue of credibility for the Board to resolve.

Mercure, J. P., White, Casey, Weiss 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 January 20, 1993, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that claimant was discharged for miscon[816]*816duct because she failed to report to work as scheduled after a disability leave and did not initially contact the employer to explain the absence. Her contention that she had already been discharged by that time merely raised an issue of credibility for the Board to resolve.

Mercure, J. P., White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 815, 614 N.Y.S.2d 333, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-larsen-nyappdiv-1994.