In re the Claim of Scholfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Scholfield

209 A.D.2d 799, 618 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11094

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 799 (In re the Claim of Scholfield) 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 Scholfield, 209 A.D.2d 799, 618 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 15, 1993, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged from her position as a flex audit machine operator with the Postal Service because of misconduct. Two witnesses for the employer testified that claimant impersonated another employee and then took a test that this other employee needed to pass to keep her job. While claimant labeled these witnesses as "big liars”, the issue of witness credibility is a matter for the Board to determine. In light of the evidence of claimant’s participation in a plan to evade her employer’s rules, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances and is liable for a recoverable overpayment of benefits.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 January 15, 1993, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged from her position as a flex audit machine operator with the Postal Service because of misconduct. Two witnesses for the employer testified that claimant impersonated another employee and then took a test that this other employee needed to pass to keep her job. While claimant labeled these witnesses as "big liars”, the issue of witness credibility is a matter for the Board to determine. In light of the evidence of claimant’s participation in a plan to evade her employer’s rules, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s conclusion that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances and is liable for a recoverable overpayment of benefits.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 799, 618 N.Y.S.2d 476, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-scholfield-nyappdiv-1994.