In re the Claim of Stoller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Stoller

51 A.D.2d 620, 377 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10957

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 620 (In re the Claim of Stoller) 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 Stoller, 51 A.D.2d 620, 377 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 28, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective February 11, 1975 because he lost his employment through misconduct. The claimant failed to report for work on Saturday, February 8, 1975. He had access to a telephone but did not call the employer to advise him of his absence. The claimant was aware of the company rule which required advising the employer if he intended to be absent. He had been previously notified of his unsatisfactory attendance record. The issues are factual and there is substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Koreman and Main, 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 May 28, 1975, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective February 11, 1975 because he lost his employment through misconduct. The claimant failed to report for work on Saturday, February 8, 1975. He had access to a telephone but did not call the employer to advise him of his absence. The claimant was aware of the company rule which required advising the employer if he intended to be absent. He had been previously notified of his unsatisfactory attendance record. The issues are factual and there is substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 620, 377 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-stoller-nyappdiv-1976.