In re the Claim of Marcano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Marcano

271 A.D.2d 795, 706 N.Y.S.2d 488, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198

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

DecidedApril 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 795 (In re the Claim of Marcano) 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 Marcano, 271 A.D.2d 795, 706 N.Y.S.2d 488, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 11, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a part-time truck driver helper after he refused a route assignment with a new driver. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving [796]*796benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Notwithstanding claimant’s exculpatory explanation for failing to abide by his employer’s request, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision inasmuch as an employee’s refusal to comply with an employer’s reasonable request may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Attara [Permis Constr. Corp. — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 936; Matter of Hirschfeld [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 710; Matter of Oliver [Jiffy Lube — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 960).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and GrafFeo, 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 11, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a part-time truck driver helper after he refused a route assignment with a new driver. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving [796]*796benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Notwithstanding claimant’s exculpatory explanation for failing to abide by his employer’s request, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision inasmuch as an employee’s refusal to comply with an employer’s reasonable request may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Attara [Permis Constr. Corp. — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 936; Matter of Hirschfeld [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 710; Matter of Oliver [Jiffy Lube — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 960).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and GrafFeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 795, 706 N.Y.S.2d 488, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-marcano-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack