In re the Claim of Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Moore

51 A.D.2d 614, 378 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10942

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 614 (In re the Claim of Moore) 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 Moore, 51 A.D.2d 614, 378 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 27, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective April 5, 1974 on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. The record demonstrates substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that appellant, a bellman, knowingly violated a rule and regulation of his employer by selling liquor to his employer’s guests in hotel rooms assigned to them. Appellant was given written notice not to sell alcoholic beverages to guests and that any employee discovered violating the rule would be dismissed immediately. The board’s decision must be sustained (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of James [Levine] 34 NY2d 491; Matter of Lester [Catherwood] 30 AD2d 1025). We find no merit in appellant’s claim that he was denied the equal protection of the law. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the board, in making its decision, engaged in "intentional or purposeful discrimination” (Snowden v Hughes, 321 US 1, 8). Inconsistent factual determinations in separate trials of comparable cases between different parties have long been tolerated. (People ex rel. Guido v Calkins, 9 NY2d 77; People v Kief, 126 NY 661.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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 November 27, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective April 5, 1974 on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct in connection therewith. The record demonstrates substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that appellant, a bellman, knowingly violated a rule and regulation of his employer by selling liquor to his employer’s guests in hotel rooms assigned to them. Appellant was given written notice not to sell alcoholic beverages to guests and that any employee discovered violating the rule would be dismissed immediately. The board’s decision must be sustained (Labor Law, § 623; Matter of James [Levine] 34 NY2d 491; Matter of Lester [Catherwood] 30 AD2d 1025). We find no merit in appellant’s claim that he was denied the equal protection of the law. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the board, in making its decision, engaged in "intentional or purposeful discrimination” (Snowden v Hughes, 321 US 1, 8). Inconsistent factual determinations in separate trials of comparable cases between different parties have long been tolerated. (People ex rel. Guido v Calkins, 9 NY2d 77; People v Kief, 126 NY 661.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 614, 378 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-moore-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack