In re the Claims of Oswald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claims of Oswald

172 A.D.2d 938, 568 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569

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

DecidedApril 11, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 938 (In re the Claims of Oswald) 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 Claims of Oswald, 172 A.D.2d 938, 568 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 6, 1989, which ruled that claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because their employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Upon claimants’ continued refusals to perform additional duties because of a decrease in the amount of work in their department, the employer terminated their employment. Claimants contended that they were not trained for the new duties and their normal job would suffer, both of which they claimed would cause them stress. Contrary to claimants’ contentions, the record establishes that the new job responsibilities would only take up 2 to 3 hours each week, would not extend their work day and the skill level needed to perform the new duties was equivalent to their normal duties. In addition, claimants failed to offer any evidence of stress. Under the circumstances and given that this was a reasonable request in light of the employer’s financial condition at the time, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant’s refusal to take on these duties constituted misconduct (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759; Matter of Utley [Levine], 51 AD2d 823).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Crew III and Harvey, 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 December 6, 1989, which ruled that claimants were disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because their employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Upon claimants’ continued refusals to perform additional duties because of a decrease in the amount of work in their department, the employer terminated their employment. Claimants contended that they were not trained for the new duties and their normal job would suffer, both of which they claimed would cause them stress. Contrary to claimants’ contentions, the record establishes that the new job responsibilities would only take up 2 to 3 hours each week, would not extend their work day and the skill level needed to perform the new duties was equivalent to their normal duties. In addition, claimants failed to offer any evidence of stress. Under the circumstances and given that this was a reasonable request in light of the employer’s financial condition at the time, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant’s refusal to take on these duties constituted misconduct (see, Matter of Centineo [Levine], 53 AD2d 759; Matter of Utley [Levine], 51 AD2d 823).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 938, 568 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claims-of-oswald-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack