In re the Claim of Salomone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Salomone

166 A.D.2d 863, 562 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12824

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 863 (In re the Claim of Salomone) 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 Salomone, 166 A.D.2d 863, 562 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12824 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 3, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence established that claimant was repeatedly instructed by his superiors not to attend a meeting with a client of the employer in Finland concerning a lawsuit against the client. Although he admitted he was so told, claimant argued that in deciding to go he was acting in his employer’s best interest. However, the record shows that the instructions were reasonable and the conclusion that claimant’s actions in disobeying the employer constituted misconduct sufficient to warrant his dismissal is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Boulware [Ross], 47 NY2d 928).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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 3, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence established that claimant was repeatedly instructed by his superiors not to attend a meeting with a client of the employer in Finland concerning a lawsuit against the client. Although he admitted he was so told, claimant argued that in deciding to go he was acting in his employer’s best interest. However, the record shows that the instructions were reasonable and the conclusion that claimant’s actions in disobeying the employer constituted misconduct sufficient to warrant his dismissal is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Boulware [Ross], 47 NY2d 928).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 863, 562 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-salomone-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack