In re the Claim of Trafalski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Trafalski

50 A.D.2d 1016, 377 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1016 (In re the Claim of Trafalski) 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 Trafalski, 50 A.D.2d 1016, 377 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 7, 1975 which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective August 26, 1974 because he lost his employment through misconduct. The issue of credibility and. the resolution of the factual issue as to whether claimant properly notified his employer of his absences from work and of when he intended to return were within the province of the board (Matter of Roth [Catherwood] 34 AD2d 1081). There was substantial evidence to support the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, 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 February 7, 1975 which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits effective August 26, 1974 because he lost his employment through misconduct. The issue of credibility and. the resolution of the factual issue as to whether claimant properly notified his employer of his absences from work and of when he intended to return were within the province of the board (Matter of Roth [Catherwood] 34 AD2d 1081). There was substantial evidence to support the decision of the board. Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Koreman, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 1016, 377 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-trafalski-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack