In re the Claim of Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Santiago

51 A.D.2d 1097, 381 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11953

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1097 (In re the Claim of Santiago) 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 Santiago, 51 A.D.2d 1097, 381 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 17, 1975 which adopted and affirmed a referee’s decision sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner that the claimant was disqualified from benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct and that he made a willful false statement to receive benefits. The record establishes that prior to September 11, 1974 the claimant had been warned that continual absenteeism on his part would result in being discharged. Nevertheless he was absent without any excuse except to fix his car for about five [1098]*1098days commencing September 11, 1974 through September 16, 1974. The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding of misconduct and that when he told the local office he was laid off because of no work, it was a willful misrepresentation. Upon this appeal the claimant contends that he was denied effective due process because he was not provided with an interpreter and because he was not advised of his right to counsel at the hearing. These contentions are without any merit as the hearing record discloses no inability of the claimant to speak English and the notice of hearing contains the advice that a party may be represented by an agent. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Herlihy and Reynolds, 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 January 17, 1975 which adopted and affirmed a referee’s decision sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner that the claimant was disqualified from benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct and that he made a willful false statement to receive benefits. The record establishes that prior to September 11, 1974 the claimant had been warned that continual absenteeism on his part would result in being discharged. Nevertheless he was absent without any excuse except to fix his car for about five [1098]*1098days commencing September 11, 1974 through September 16, 1974. The record contains substantial evidence to support the finding of misconduct and that when he told the local office he was laid off because of no work, it was a willful misrepresentation. Upon this appeal the claimant contends that he was denied effective due process because he was not provided with an interpreter and because he was not advised of his right to counsel at the hearing. These contentions are without any merit as the hearing record discloses no inability of the claimant to speak English and the notice of hearing contains the advice that a party may be represented by an agent. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1097, 381 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-santiago-nyappdiv-1976.