In re the Claim of Patel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Patel

268 A.D.2d 641, 700 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 136

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 641 (In re the Claim of Patel) 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 Patel, 268 A.D.2d 641, 700 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 31, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was terminated from her employment as a bookkeeper for a drug store due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant purchased items at a discount without authorization. Although claimant asserts that products were damaged or discontinued and that the assistant manager authorized the transaction, the employer presented evidence to the contrary, thereby creating a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Perkov [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 780; Matter of Buisch [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 853). Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, id.).

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, 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 August 31, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was terminated from her employment as a bookkeeper for a drug store due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant purchased items at a discount without authorization. Although claimant asserts that products were damaged or discontinued and that the assistant manager authorized the transaction, the employer presented evidence to the contrary, thereby creating a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Perkov [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 780; Matter of Buisch [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 853). Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, id.).

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 641, 700 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-patel-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack