In re the Claim of Stanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Stanford

210 A.D.2d 720, 620 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12774

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 720 (In re the Claim of Stanford) 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 Stanford, 210 A.D.2d 720, 620 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12774 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 23, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The Board found that claimant, a messenger, was discharged due to the fact that he was absent from work without informing his employer after having been warned on several occasions that he needed to call in when absent. Based on these findings, the Board concluded that claimant’s actions rose to the level of misconduct, thus disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Under the circumstances, and given the record before us, substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s decision. Although claimant disputes the employer’s version of the facts surrounding [721]*721his dismissal, this merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., 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 23, 1993, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The Board found that claimant, a messenger, was discharged due to the fact that he was absent from work without informing his employer after having been warned on several occasions that he needed to call in when absent. Based on these findings, the Board concluded that claimant’s actions rose to the level of misconduct, thus disqualifying him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Under the circumstances, and given the record before us, substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s decision. Although claimant disputes the employer’s version of the facts surrounding [721]*721his dismissal, this merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 720, 620 N.Y.S.2d 177, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-stanford-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack