In re the Claim of Speciner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Speciner

166 A.D.2d 848, 563 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12778

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 848 (In re the Claim of Speciner) 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 Speciner, 166 A.D.2d 848, 563 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 19, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Under the circumstances of this case, claimant’s refusal to prepare an income tax return for a valued client, as requested by a partner of the law firm, rose to the level of misconduct. The record clearly establishes that the partner’s request here was not only a reasonable one, but it was related to claimant’s job duties and it did not require claimant to do anything unexpected of him or demeaning in nature (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759). As such, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Attie [Skott Edwards Consultants—Roberts], 134 AD2d 751, 751-752).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, 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 June 19, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Under the circumstances of this case, claimant’s refusal to prepare an income tax return for a valued client, as requested by a partner of the law firm, rose to the level of misconduct. The record clearly establishes that the partner’s request here was not only a reasonable one, but it was related to claimant’s job duties and it did not require claimant to do anything unexpected of him or demeaning in nature (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759). As such, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Attie [Skott Edwards Consultants—Roberts], 134 AD2d 751, 751-752).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 848, 563 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-speciner-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack