In re the Claim of Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Roth

224 A.D.2d 796, 637 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 984

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 796 (In re the Claim of Roth) 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 Roth, 224 A.D.2d 796, 637 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 24, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated for misconduct.

Claimant argues that the Board’s decision denying her unemployment benefits is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Claimant admitted that she gave her employer last-minute notice of the fact that she would not be at work on the date in question and that she was not there to receive his call despite her prior representation that she had to [797]*797stay home to get her refrigerator repaired. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Labor Law § 593 [3]; Matter of Miller v Catherwood, 30 AD2d 610).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey 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 May 24, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated for misconduct.

Claimant argues that the Board’s decision denying her unemployment benefits is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Claimant admitted that she gave her employer last-minute notice of the fact that she would not be at work on the date in question and that she was not there to receive his call despite her prior representation that she had to [797]*797stay home to get her refrigerator repaired. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Labor Law § 593 [3]; Matter of Miller v Catherwood, 30 AD2d 610).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 796, 637 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-roth-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack