In re the Claim of Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Moore

199 A.D.2d 795, 605 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12198

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 795 (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, 199 A.D.2d 795, 605 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 30, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment [796]*796insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged for misconduct because of lateness and absenteeism. Continued lateness after adequate warnings constitutes misconduct which bars a claimant from the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Significantly, the Board was free to disbelieve claimant’s explanations or excuses for his conduct in this respect.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, White and Mahoney, 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 November 30, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment [796]*796insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged for misconduct because of lateness and absenteeism. Continued lateness after adequate warnings constitutes misconduct which bars a claimant from the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Significantly, the Board was free to disbelieve claimant’s explanations or excuses for his conduct in this respect.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 795, 605 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-moore-nyappdiv-1993.