In re the Claim of Strozewski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Strozewski

114 A.D.2d 744, 494 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53387

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 744 (In re the Claim of Strozewski) 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 Strozewski, 114 A.D.2d 744, 494 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 26, 1984, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant lost his employment as a security guard due to misconduct for having failed to punch time clocks during his rounds, despite prior warnings that he was required to do so. Since the record contains evidence that on the date in question claimant failed to punch the time clocks for a three-hour period, evidence which the Board apparently credited, we reject claimant’s argument that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant also raises a procedural objection concerning his absence during one of the hearings, which claimant argues deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself. The record establishes that claimant actually received notice of the hearing, which was sent to the mailing address given by claimant, and we find no infringement of any due process right. In the circumstances presented here, we agree with the Commissioner of Labor’s suggestion that claimant’s objection should be presented to the Board in an application to reopen its decision.

[745]*745Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Casey, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 26, 1984, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant lost his employment as a security guard due to misconduct for having failed to punch time clocks during his rounds, despite prior warnings that he was required to do so. Since the record contains evidence that on the date in question claimant failed to punch the time clocks for a three-hour period, evidence which the Board apparently credited, we reject claimant’s argument that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant also raises a procedural objection concerning his absence during one of the hearings, which claimant argues deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself. The record establishes that claimant actually received notice of the hearing, which was sent to the mailing address given by claimant, and we find no infringement of any due process right. In the circumstances presented here, we agree with the Commissioner of Labor’s suggestion that claimant’s objection should be presented to the Board in an application to reopen its decision.

[745]*745Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 744, 494 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-strozewski-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack