In re the Claim of Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Murray

219 A.D.2d 748, 631 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedSeptember 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 748 (In re the Claim of Murray) 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 Murray, 219 A.D.2d 748, 631 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 20, 1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[749]*749On its own motion, the Board reopened claimant’s case to consider whether there had been compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). After reviewing the record, the Board found no substantial procedural violations. Consequently, it adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant’s failure to promptly call her employer when unable to report to work due to illness constituted misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. Upon review of the record, we concur with the Board’s finding that there were no procedural violations. Furthermore, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied due process at the hearing. Lastly, we need not reach the merits of claimant’s case inasmuch as the Board’s review was limited to consideration of potential procedural violations.

Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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 January 20, 1994, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[749]*749On its own motion, the Board reopened claimant’s case to consider whether there had been compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in the consent judgment in Municipal Labor Comm. v Sitkin (79 Civ 5899, 1983 WL 44294). After reviewing the record, the Board found no substantial procedural violations. Consequently, it adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant’s failure to promptly call her employer when unable to report to work due to illness constituted misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. Upon review of the record, we concur with the Board’s finding that there were no procedural violations. Furthermore, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied due process at the hearing. Lastly, we need not reach the merits of claimant’s case inasmuch as the Board’s review was limited to consideration of potential procedural violations.

Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 748, 631 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-murray-nyappdiv-1995.