In re the Claim of Quackenbush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Quackenbush

241 A.D.2d 653, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7366

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 10, 1997·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 29, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a salesperson dealing in plumbing and heating supplies until he was discharged for submitting false reports regarding his sales calls and failing to make customer contacts. An employee’s submission of false reports to an employer has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Dennis [Westgate Nursing Home—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 730, lv denied 89 NY2d 811). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision finding that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unavailing.

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, 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 March 29, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a salesperson dealing in plumbing and heating supplies until he was discharged for submitting false reports regarding his sales calls and failing to make customer contacts. An employee’s submission of false reports to an employer has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Dennis [Westgate Nursing Home—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 730, lv denied 89 NY2d 811). Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision finding that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unavailing.

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

In re the Claim of Quackenbush, 241 A.D.2d 653, 663 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

241 A.D.2d 653 (In re the Claim of Quackenbush) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related