In re the Claim of McEnany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of McEnany

216 A.D.2d 623, 627 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5863

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

DecidedJune 1, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 623 (In re the Claim of McEnany) 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 McEnany, 216 A.D.2d 623, 627 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5863 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 27,1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an administrative aide, was discharged from her employment after numerous incidents of insubordination and disruptive behavior. The record reveals that despite receiving several warnings as well as a short suspension, claimant continued to make derogatory remarks about her supervisor and to question her authority. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was terminated for misconduct.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 April 27,1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an administrative aide, was discharged from her employment after numerous incidents of insubordination and disruptive behavior. The record reveals that despite receiving several warnings as well as a short suspension, claimant continued to make derogatory remarks about her supervisor and to question her authority. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was terminated for misconduct.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 623, 627 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mcenany-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack