In re the Claim of Van Sluytman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Van Sluytman

235 A.D.2d 899, 653 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 536

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 899 (In re the Claim of Van Sluytman) 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 Van Sluytman, 235 A.D.2d 899, 653 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant and her employer were codefendants in a civil trial arising out of an accident wherein claimant struck a pedestrian while driving the employer’s car. In May 1993, at a time when claimant had been subpoenaed to testify at trial and jury selection had commenced, claimant nonetheless left on a vacation trip, failing to comply with her employer’s request to leave a telephone number where she could be reached. Because claimant was not available to testify, the employer, who had planned to contest the matter, was. instead forced to settle it. Claimant was discharged from her employment and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was discharged due to misconduct. We affirm. There is substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant engaged in conduct “detrimental to her employer’s interest” (Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 941) and that she was properly found to be disqualified from receiving benefits.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White 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 October 2, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant and her employer were codefendants in a civil trial arising out of an accident wherein claimant struck a pedestrian while driving the employer’s car. In May 1993, at a time when claimant had been subpoenaed to testify at trial and jury selection had commenced, claimant nonetheless left on a vacation trip, failing to comply with her employer’s request to leave a telephone number where she could be reached. Because claimant was not available to testify, the employer, who had planned to contest the matter, was. instead forced to settle it. Claimant was discharged from her employment and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was discharged due to misconduct. We affirm. There is substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant engaged in conduct “detrimental to her employer’s interest” (Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 941) and that she was properly found to be disqualified from receiving benefits.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 899, 653 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-van-sluytman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack