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

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

DecidedSeptember 17, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 960 (In re the Claim of Oliver) 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 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

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]*961ports 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]*961ports 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 960, 678 N.Y.S.2d 406, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-oliver-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack