In re the Claim of Siller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Siller

50 A.D.2d 638, 375 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12453

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 638 (In re the Claim of Siller) 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 Siller, 50 A.D.2d 638, 375 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct. Claimant refused to change the time when he began his work day, although the change was approved by his union. When he refused to start work at a new time, he was discharged. The record in this case provides substantial evidence to support the factual finding of the board that the claimant lost his employment through misconduct (Matter of James [Levine], 34 NY2d 491; Matter of Miletti [Levine] 48 AD2d 1011). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Larkin, 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 21, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct. Claimant refused to change the time when he began his work day, although the change was approved by his union. When he refused to start work at a new time, he was discharged. The record in this case provides substantial evidence to support the factual finding of the board that the claimant lost his employment through misconduct (Matter of James [Levine], 34 NY2d 491; Matter of Miletti [Levine] 48 AD2d 1011). Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Koreman and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 638, 375 N.Y.S.2d 53, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-siller-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack