In re the Claim of Madison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Madison

201 A.D.2d 824, 607 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1127

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 1994·Published

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 1, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged for misconduct from her position as a hotel housekeeper for refusing a work assignment without good cause. It is well settled that a claimant’s refusal to work or perform prescribed duties, in direct disregard of an employer’s reasonable instructions, constitutes misconduct. In this case, the Board was entitled to credit the employer’s witnesses who testified that claimant refused to work at one location simply because she preferred another. The Board was also free to disbelieve claimant’s alternative explanation for her actions.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 1, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged for misconduct from her position as a hotel housekeeper for refusing a work assignment without good cause. It is well settled that a claimant’s refusal to work or perform prescribed duties, in direct disregard of an employer’s reasonable instructions, constitutes misconduct. In this case, the Board was entitled to credit the employer’s witnesses who testified that claimant refused to work at one location simply because she preferred another. The Board was also free to disbelieve claimant’s alternative explanation for her actions.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

In re the Claim of Madison, 201 A.D.2d 824, 607 N.Y.S.2d 193, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

201 A.D.2d 824 (In re the Claim of Madison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.