In re the Claim of Oliver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Oliver

253 A.D.2d 960, 678 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9520

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 17, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 16, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a lube technician after he refused to comply with the employer’s request to stock inventory. As claimant admittedly had stocked inventory in the past, we find that substantial evidence sup[961] ports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s insubordination amounted to disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Ledesma [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 748; Matter of Sweat [Children’s Home—Hudacs], 198 AD2d 695). Claimant’s exculpatory explanation for failing to abide by the employer’s request simply raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932, 933; Matter of Seguin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 747).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 October 16, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a lube technician after he refused to comply with the employer’s request to stock inventory. As claimant admittedly had stocked inventory in the past, we find that substantial evidence sup[961] ports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s insubordination amounted to disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Ledesma [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 748; Matter of Sweat [Children’s Home—Hudacs], 198 AD2d 695). Claimant’s exculpatory explanation for failing to abide by the employer’s request simply raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932, 933; Matter of Seguin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 747).

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

In re the Claim of Oliver, 253 A.D.2d 960, 678 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 960 (In re the Claim of Oliver) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related