In re the Claim of Mankowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Mankowski

50 A.D.2d 962, 375 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11920

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 962 (In re the Claim of Mankowski) 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 Mankowski, 50 A.D.2d 962, 375 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 26, 1975, which reversed the decision of a referee and, as modified, sustained the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective March 19, 1974 because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. Contradictory testimony was presented by a representative of the employer and claimant which created a sharp issue of credibility within the province of the board to resolve. In finding that claimant had previously been disciplined on account of his poor record of attendance; had thereafter been warned concerning [963]*963absenteeism and lateness; and had called in some five hours after he was scheduled to report for work on the day of his discharge, the board has properly rejected claimant’s proffered account and determined, on substantial evidence, that his employment was terminated by reason of his own misconduct (cf. Matter of Greene [Levine], 48 AD2d 747; Matter of Rivera [Levine], 47 AD2d 569). Claimant’s statement to the effect that it was his word against that of the employer’s representative is correct; there is no merit in his contention that the employer was obliged to produce records in further support of its version of events. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Larkin, JJ., concur.

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 March 26, 1975, which reversed the decision of a referee and, as modified, sustained the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner holding claimant ineligible to receive benefits effective March 19, 1974 because he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. Contradictory testimony was presented by a representative of the employer and claimant which created a sharp issue of credibility within the province of the board to resolve. In finding that claimant had previously been disciplined on account of his poor record of attendance; had thereafter been warned concerning [963]*963absenteeism and lateness; and had called in some five hours after he was scheduled to report for work on the day of his discharge, the board has properly rejected claimant’s proffered account and determined, on substantial evidence, that his employment was terminated by reason of his own misconduct (cf. Matter of Greene [Levine], 48 AD2d 747; Matter of Rivera [Levine], 47 AD2d 569). Claimant’s statement to the effect that it was his word against that of the employer’s representative is correct; there is no merit in his contention that the employer was obliged to produce records in further support of its version of events. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 962, 375 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mankowski-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack