In re the Claim of Somerville

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Somerville

178 A.D.2d 742, 577 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16029

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 742 (In re the Claim of Somerville) 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 Somerville, 178 A.D.2d 742, 577 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16029 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 26, 1991, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant admitted that he got into a dispute with his employer’s vice-president regarding his request to be paid early, that he became upset and walked off the job without informing the vice-president that he was leaving. He also admitted that on the next two scheduled work days he arrived late and left without working either day. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Bois [Levine], 53 AD2d 731; Matter of Rossano [Levine], 52 AD2d 1006). Claimant’s contentions to the contrary concern questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged — Roberts], 113 AD2d 997).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, 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 February 26, 1991, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant admitted that he got into a dispute with his employer’s vice-president regarding his request to be paid early, that he became upset and walked off the job without informing the vice-president that he was leaving. He also admitted that on the next two scheduled work days he arrived late and left without working either day. Under these circumstances, the conclusion by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment due to misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Bois [Levine], 53 AD2d 731; Matter of Rossano [Levine], 52 AD2d 1006). Claimant’s contentions to the contrary concern questions of credibility which were for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged — Roberts], 113 AD2d 997).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 742, 577 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-somerville-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack