In re the Claim of Whitehead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Whitehead

168 A.D.2d 774, 564 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15244

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 774 (In re the Claim of Whitehead) 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 Whitehead, 168 A.D.2d 774, 564 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 16, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant refused to work after being told by his employer that he would be discharged if he did not work. Although the particular day in question was a religious holiday for claimant’s employer, claimant knew that it was not a holiday on which the business was closed. Claimant gave no valid reason for his refusal to work and, in fact, it was an extremely busy day. It was therefore not unreasonable for the employer to require claimant to work. As such, the conclusion that claimant’s refusal to work constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 AD2d 1006, 1007; Matter of Graziose [Levine], 50 AD2d 1030).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, 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 March 16, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant refused to work after being told by his employer that he would be discharged if he did not work. Although the particular day in question was a religious holiday for claimant’s employer, claimant knew that it was not a holiday on which the business was closed. Claimant gave no valid reason for his refusal to work and, in fact, it was an extremely busy day. It was therefore not unreasonable for the employer to require claimant to work. As such, the conclusion that claimant’s refusal to work constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Flores [Levine], 50 AD2d 1006, 1007; Matter of Graziose [Levine], 50 AD2d 1030).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 774, 564 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-whitehead-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack