In re the Claim of Michelfelder

80 A.D.2d 969, 438 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10875
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 26, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 969 (In re the Claim of Michelfelder) 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 Michelfelder, 80 A.D.2d 969, 438 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 5, 1979, which reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge and reinstated the determination of the local office disqualifying claimant from benefits because of misconduct. When this matter was before us originally, we withheld determination for 20 days pending notification as to whether an application for reopening would be made to the board. Both the Industrial Commissioner and claimant have advised that no such application will be made. Accordingly, we proceed to the merits. By initial determination, the Industrial Commissioner held claimant to be ineligible for benefits because he lost his employment as a store detective due to misconduct (Labor Law, § 593, subd 3). The misconduct found was claimant’s failure to call in on April 4, 1979 to report that he would be absent due to illness after having been warned that he was required to call in prior to the commencement of his shift. Claimant sought review of this determination and it was subsequently overruled by an Administrative Law Judge who found that claimant had a reasonable explanation for his failure to report and that, in view of his exemplary work record, his actions did not constitute misconduct. Upon an [970]*970appeal by the employer, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge was reversed by the board and the determination of the local office reinstated. We conclude that the determination of the board is supported by substantial evidence. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of O'Grady
195 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Kessler
192 A.D.2d 1008 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re the Claim of Tocantins
186 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Briones
183 A.D.2d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Gaines
180 A.D.2d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Caravan
179 A.D.2d 972 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
In re the Claim of Head
176 A.D.2d 1126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Montuori
176 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Enchavtegui
173 A.D.2d 999 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Helwig
170 A.D.2d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the Claim of Lawson
151 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 A.D.2d 969, 438 N.Y.S.2d 621, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-michelfelder-nyappdiv-1981.