In re the Claim of Lloyd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lloyd

242 A.D.2d 817, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8690

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 817 (In re the Claim of Lloyd) 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 Lloyd, 242 A.D.2d 817, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Based upon the advice of her physician, claimant, a social [818]*818worker, obtained a three-month medical leave of absence. During her leave of absence, claimant failed to keep a doctor’s appointment which had been scheduled by her employer for a second opinion. She also failed to notify her employer of her failure to attend, despite being informed that she was required to do so immediately if she was unable to keep the appointment. Claimant also did not respond to the employer’s ensuing messages and letters, including the notification that her employment had been terminated. Because substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct by failing to abide by a reasonable request of her employer, we affirm (see, Matter of Bristol [New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.— Sweeney], 238 AD2d 644; Matter of Jones [Hudacs], 202 AD2d 889, appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 948; see generally, Matter of Tensley [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 711). Claimant’s explanations for not keeping the doctor’s appointment and failing to contact the employer for over a six-day period created a credibility issue which was for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Stanford [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 720).

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, 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 August 27, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Based upon the advice of her physician, claimant, a social [818]*818worker, obtained a three-month medical leave of absence. During her leave of absence, claimant failed to keep a doctor’s appointment which had been scheduled by her employer for a second opinion. She also failed to notify her employer of her failure to attend, despite being informed that she was required to do so immediately if she was unable to keep the appointment. Claimant also did not respond to the employer’s ensuing messages and letters, including the notification that her employment had been terminated. Because substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct by failing to abide by a reasonable request of her employer, we affirm (see, Matter of Bristol [New York State Elec. & Gas Corp.— Sweeney], 238 AD2d 644; Matter of Jones [Hudacs], 202 AD2d 889, appeal dismissed 84 NY2d 948; see generally, Matter of Tensley [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 711). Claimant’s explanations for not keeping the doctor’s appointment and failing to contact the employer for over a six-day period created a credibility issue which was for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Stanford [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 720).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 817, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lloyd-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack