In re the Claim of Newby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Newby

202 A.D.2d 930, 609 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 930 (In re the Claim of Newby) 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 Newby, 202 A.D.2d 930, 609 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 10, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed by a nursing home as its recreation director. She was terminated when she returned to the prem[931]*931ises and refused repeated instructions by her superiors to leave after being told to stay home as a part of a "cooling off’ period resulting from a labor dispute. These facts constitute substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct in that she refused the reasonable instructions of her supervisor. Further, the Board properly ruled that the benefits paid claimant were recoverable.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 10, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed by a nursing home as its recreation director. She was terminated when she returned to the prem[931]*931ises and refused repeated instructions by her superiors to leave after being told to stay home as a part of a "cooling off’ period resulting from a labor dispute. These facts constitute substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct in that she refused the reasonable instructions of her supervisor. Further, the Board properly ruled that the benefits paid claimant were recoverable.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 930, 609 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-newby-nyappdiv-1994.