In re the Claim of Mesidor

247 A.D.2d 696, 668 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 696 (In re the Claim of Mesidor) 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 Mesidor, 247 A.D.2d 696, 668 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 15,1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was employed as a factory worker for a fan manufacturer. On his last day of work, claimant was sent home for failing to follow instructions on how to cut metal and was told to come back the next day if he wanted to continue working. Claimant left and did not return to work thereafter. Under these circumstances, we find that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause (see, Matter of McKeown [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 744). Although claimant testified that he was fired on the day he was sent home, an allegation the employer denied, this conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Fernandez [Sweeney], 241 AD2d 676; Matter of McKeown [Sweeney], supra).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Grimes
25 A.D.3d 1049 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Simon
276 A.D.2d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Broomall
275 A.D.2d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Roawden
263 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Fahey
257 A.D.2d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Olawale
254 A.D.2d 552 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Rulka
249 A.D.2d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
247 A.D.2d 696, 668 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-mesidor-nyappdiv-1998.