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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 6, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

268 A.D.2d 641 (In re the Claim of Patel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related