In re the Claim of Scott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Scott

205 A.D.2d 811, 615 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5807

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 205 A.D.2d 811 (In re the Claim of Scott) 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 Scott, 205 A.D.2d 811, 615 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5807 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 8, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged for misconduct from his position as a freezer clerk for a wholesale food distributor. Claimant was terminated because of repeated absences and failure to call in and report his absences, despite prior warnings. Significantly, the Board was free to disbelieve claimant’s explanation of his conduct and to credit the testimony of the employer’s witness.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 June 8, 1992, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination that claimant was discharged for misconduct from his position as a freezer clerk for a wholesale food distributor. Claimant was terminated because of repeated absences and failure to call in and report his absences, despite prior warnings. Significantly, the Board was free to disbelieve claimant’s explanation of his conduct and to credit the testimony of the employer’s witness.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 811, 615 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-scott-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack