In re the Claim of Wade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Wade

50 A.D.2d 1003, 376 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11980

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 18, 1975·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 28, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner which disqualified claimant from receiving benefits because she lost employment through her own misconduct in connection therewith. Claimant’s explanation for her admitted refusal to carry out the floor manager’s order raised questions of fact and credibility. The board’s resolution of the issues was one within its province, and, since it was [1004]*1004supported by substantial evidence, we must affirm (cf. Matter of Lester [Catherwood], 30 AD2d 1025). Claimant’s assertion that the board’s decision was based solely on hearsay overlooks the fact that claimant herself testified that she refused to carry out the manager’s order and that the board found the order to be a reasonable one. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, 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 October 28, 1974, which affirmed the decision of a referee sustaining the initial determination of the Industrial Commissioner which disqualified claimant from receiving benefits because she lost employment through her own misconduct in connection therewith. Claimant’s explanation for her admitted refusal to carry out the floor manager’s order raised questions of fact and credibility. The board’s resolution of the issues was one within its province, and, since it was [1004]*1004supported by substantial evidence, we must affirm (cf. Matter of Lester [Catherwood], 30 AD2d 1025). Claimant’s assertion that the board’s decision was based solely on hearsay overlooks the fact that claimant herself testified that she refused to carry out the manager’s order and that the board found the order to be a reasonable one. Decision affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

In re the Claim of Wade, 50 A.D.2d 1003, 376 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

50 A.D.2d 1003 (In re the Claim of Wade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related