In re the Claim of Mandia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mandia

8 A.D.3d 940, 779 N.Y.S.2d 278, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8825

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

DecidedJune 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 940 (In re the Claim of Mandia) 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 Mandia, 8 A.D.3d 940, 779 N.Y.S.2d 278, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[941]*941Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 15, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment as a dental assistant due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant called in sick on three consecutive days because she was upset with the employer for issuing her paychecks that bounced. Although claimant had just cause to be upset, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision inasmuch as claimant misrepresented to the employer her reasons for failing to report to work (see Matter of Fowler [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 768 [1997]; Matter of Sanford [Levine], 52 AD2d 1024 [1976]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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

[941]*941Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 15, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment as a dental assistant due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant called in sick on three consecutive days because she was upset with the employer for issuing her paychecks that bounced. Although claimant had just cause to be upset, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision inasmuch as claimant misrepresented to the employer her reasons for failing to report to work (see Matter of Fowler [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 768 [1997]; Matter of Sanford [Levine], 52 AD2d 1024 [1976]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 940, 779 N.Y.S.2d 278, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mandia-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack