In re the Claim of Sterling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sterling

249 A.D.2d 674, 671 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896

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

DecidedApril 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 674 (In re the Claim of Sterling) 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 Sterling, 249 A.D.2d 674, 671 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 8, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a construction worker, performed work for one of the employer’s customers on his own time. When claimant refused to turn over to the employer the payment he had received, he was discharged. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. A claimant who has acted in a way that is detrimental to his or her employer’s interest may be found guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Velazquez [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 928). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant diverted work and the payment received therefor from his employer in contravention of the employer’s financial interest (cf., Matter of Jedrak-Perz [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 858). The ruling that claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 May 8, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a construction worker, performed work for one of the employer’s customers on his own time. When claimant refused to turn over to the employer the payment he had received, he was discharged. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. A claimant who has acted in a way that is detrimental to his or her employer’s interest may be found guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Velazquez [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 928). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant diverted work and the payment received therefor from his employer in contravention of the employer’s financial interest (cf., Matter of Jedrak-Perz [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 858). The ruling that claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits is, accordingly, affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 674, 671 N.Y.S.2d 172, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sterling-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack