In re the Claim of Severino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Severino

170 A.D.2d 739, 565 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1385

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 A.D.2d 739 (In re the Claim of Severino) 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 Severino, 170 A.D.2d 739, 565 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 11, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence established that claimant refused to cooperate with a reasonable request by his supervisor to discuss a particular project and that he exhibited abusive behavior toward his supervisor. Under these circumstances, and given that claimant had been previously placed on probation for three months due to insufficiency in his work performance, the conclusion that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History—Roberts], 103 AD2d 919; Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, 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 11, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The evidence established that claimant refused to cooperate with a reasonable request by his supervisor to discuss a particular project and that he exhibited abusive behavior toward his supervisor. Under these circumstances, and given that claimant had been previously placed on probation for three months due to insufficiency in his work performance, the conclusion that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Valentin [American Museum of Natural History—Roberts], 103 AD2d 919; Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 739, 565 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-severino-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack