In re the Claim of Merard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Merard

240 A.D.2d 828, 659 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 828 (In re the Claim of Merard) 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 Merard, 240 A.D.2d 828, 659 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 24, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his position as a production aide for falsifying information on his employment application. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant admits that he misrepresented his prior work history on his employment application. Furthermore, claimant’s signature appears on the employment application beneath the employer’s policy which explains that any false information contained in the ap[829]*829plication could result in dismissal. Under these circumstances, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Ghorab [Sweeney], 219 AD2d 793; Matter of Sapp [Roberts], 111 AD2d 977). Claimant’s statement that he was fired as a result of being involved in an accident with the employer’s van merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see generally, Matter of Jonassen [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 738, 739).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, 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 July 24, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his position as a production aide for falsifying information on his employment application. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant admits that he misrepresented his prior work history on his employment application. Furthermore, claimant’s signature appears on the employment application beneath the employer’s policy which explains that any false information contained in the ap[829]*829plication could result in dismissal. Under these circumstances, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see generally, Matter of Ghorab [Sweeney], 219 AD2d 793; Matter of Sapp [Roberts], 111 AD2d 977). Claimant’s statement that he was fired as a result of being involved in an accident with the employer’s van merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see generally, Matter of Jonassen [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 738, 739).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 828, 659 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-merard-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack