In re the Claim of Perkov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Perkov

231 A.D.2d 780, 647 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8787

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

DecidedSeptember 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 780 (In re the Claim of Perkov) 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 Perkov, 231 A.D.2d 780, 647 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 18, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her position as a sales associate at a department store for violating her employer’s policies. The Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The employer’s witnesses testified that claimant violated the employer’s policy prohibiting employees from wearing company merchandise when a pair of slippers which claimant had worn but not purchased were found among her personal belongings. Claimant admitted that she wore slippers which she did not pay for but stated that her supervisor had given her permission to do so. Given that credibility determinations are matters for the Board to decide, the Board did not have to accept claimant’s excuse for wearing the slippers. Under the circumstances presented, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct (see, Matter of Cirlin [Ross], 70 AD2d 1030).

Cardona, P. J., 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 18, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her position as a sales associate at a department store for violating her employer’s policies. The Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that she was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. The employer’s witnesses testified that claimant violated the employer’s policy prohibiting employees from wearing company merchandise when a pair of slippers which claimant had worn but not purchased were found among her personal belongings. Claimant admitted that she wore slippers which she did not pay for but stated that her supervisor had given her permission to do so. Given that credibility determinations are matters for the Board to decide, the Board did not have to accept claimant’s excuse for wearing the slippers. Under the circumstances presented, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct (see, Matter of Cirlin [Ross], 70 AD2d 1030).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 780, 647 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-perkov-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack