In re the Claim of Saponara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Saponara

166 A.D.2d 865, 563 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12829

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 865 (In re the Claim of Saponara) 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 Saponara, 166 A.D.2d 865, 563 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 13, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Although claimant argued that he could not attend the three-day instructional seminar as directed by the employer, he did not offer a satisfactory explanation for such failure. Furthermore, while he claimed that he was told he did not have to attend, this was a question of credibility within the sole province of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 AD2d 934). Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s failure to attend the seminar constituted misconduct must be upheld (see, Matter of Markovic [Levine], 50 AD2d 1031).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, 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 March 13, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Although claimant argued that he could not attend the three-day instructional seminar as directed by the employer, he did not offer a satisfactory explanation for such failure. Furthermore, while he claimed that he was told he did not have to attend, this was a question of credibility within the sole province of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board (see, Matter of Nunes [Roberts], 98 AD2d 934). Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant’s failure to attend the seminar constituted misconduct must be upheld (see, Matter of Markovic [Levine], 50 AD2d 1031).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 865, 563 N.Y.S.2d 194, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-saponara-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack