In re the Claim of Schneiderman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Schneiderman

49 A.D.2d 779, 372 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10800

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 779 (In re the Claim of Schneiderman) 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 Schneiderman, 49 A.D.2d 779, 372 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10800 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 16, 1975, which rescinded its decision of October 3, 1973 and disqualified claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct. There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s finding of misconduct based on the proof that claimant left his work early without permission after having been previously warned that his attendance record would have to improve or disciplinary action would be taken. In light of Matter of James (Levine) (34 NY2d 491), we are not persuaded by claimant’s contention that there is no basis for the board’s rescinding its prior decision of no misconduct. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, 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Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 16, 1975, which rescinded its decision of October 3, 1973 and disqualified claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct. There is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the board’s finding of misconduct based on the proof that claimant left his work early without permission after having been previously warned that his attendance record would have to improve or disciplinary action would be taken. In light of Matter of James (Levine) (34 NY2d 491), we are not persuaded by claimant’s contention that there is no basis for the board’s rescinding its prior decision of no misconduct. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 779, 372 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-schneiderman-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack