In re the Claim of Lazala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lazala

183 A.D.2d 1017

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

DecidedMay 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A.D.2d 1017 (In re the Claim of Lazala) 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 Lazala, 183 A.D.2d 1017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 3, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed July 11, 1991, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

The conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was insubordinate and that she lost her employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record and must therefore be upheld (see, [1018]*1018Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History— Roberts], 103 AD2d 919). Claimant’s supervisor and section manager both testified that they directed claimant, a housekeeper for a hospital, to clean an area again and that claimant responded that she had already done so. The section manager checked the area before he gave the order and again after claimant’s shift had ended, and found that the job had not been done. Claimant’s contention that she told the section manager that she was cleaning the room and had cleaned it in the morning as well merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged—Roberts] 113 AD2d 997). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 3, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed July 11, 1991, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

The conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was insubordinate and that she lost her employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record and must therefore be upheld (see, [1018]*1018Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History— Roberts], 103 AD2d 919). Claimant’s supervisor and section manager both testified that they directed claimant, a housekeeper for a hospital, to clean an area again and that claimant responded that she had already done so. The section manager checked the area before he gave the order and again after claimant’s shift had ended, and found that the job had not been done. Claimant’s contention that she told the section manager that she was cleaning the room and had cleaned it in the morning as well merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged—Roberts] 113 AD2d 997). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit.

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lazala-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack