In Re the Claim of Ragazzino

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Claim of Ragazzino

418 N.E.2d 667, 52 N.Y.2d 858, 437 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2181

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 8, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 418 N.E.2d 667 (In Re the Claim of Ragazzino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Ragazzino, 418 N.E.2d 667, 52 N.Y.2d 858, 437 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2181 (N.Y. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Both claimant and the Attorney-General suggest that the board found that claimant was discharged because he failed to answer the employer’s question as to whether he could get a doctor’s note to verify his illness. The decision mentions that fact but its finding is “We reject claimant’s contention that he was too ill to work that day. Claimant could not be reached by telephone until noon and was able to come to his employer’s premises to pick up his tools later that day.”

Though claimant presented a doctor’s note dated on the day of his absence, stating that “he was unfit to report to work”, it was not presented until the hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Board. Moreover, the employer testified that he tried a number of times during the morning to reach claimant by telephone, allowing the tele *860 phone to ring numerous times, but was unsuccessful until noon. The board was not bound by claimant’s explanation (that he was sleeping in a room across the hall from where the phone was located) or by the doctor’s certificate.

The board’s decision was based upon substantial evidence. Notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s contrary concession, we, therefore, affirm.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Both claimant and the Attorney-General suggest that the board found that claimant was discharged because he failed to answer the employer’s question as to whether he could get a doctor’s note to verify his illness. The decision mentions that fact but its finding is “We reject claimant’s contention that he was too ill to work that day. Claimant could not be reached by telephone until noon and was able to come to his employer’s premises to pick up his tools later that day.”

Though claimant presented a doctor’s note dated on the day of his absence, stating that “he was unfit to report to work”, it was not presented until the hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Board. Moreover, the employer testified that he tried a number of times during the morning to reach claimant by telephone, allowing the tele *860 phone to ring numerous times, but was unsuccessful until noon. The board was not bound by claimant’s explanation (that he was sleeping in a room across the hall from where the phone was located) or by the doctor’s certificate.

The board’s decision was based upon substantial evidence. Notwithstanding the Attorney-General’s contrary concession, we, therefore, affirm.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

418 N.E.2d 667, 52 N.Y.2d 858, 437 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ragazzino-ny-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack