In re the of Claim of Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the of Claim of Brown

168 A.D.2d 871, 564 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15769

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 871 (In re the of Claim of Brown) 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 of Claim of Brown, 168 A.D.2d 871, 564 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment

Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 22, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant quit her job and gave two weeks’ notice. However, prior to the time she was scheduled to leave she turned in her keys. Claimant admitted that by doing so she no longer considered herself to be store manager. Therefore, the record indicates that claimant intended to remain on the payroll for two more weeks although she did not intend to perform her job duties as store manager. This conclusion, coupled with the fact that claimant left the store unattended one day, provides the requisite substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was terminated due to misconduct (see, Matter of Douglas [Hartnett], 143 AD2d 458).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, 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 August 22, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant quit her job and gave two weeks’ notice. However, prior to the time she was scheduled to leave she turned in her keys. Claimant admitted that by doing so she no longer considered herself to be store manager. Therefore, the record indicates that claimant intended to remain on the payroll for two more weeks although she did not intend to perform her job duties as store manager. This conclusion, coupled with the fact that claimant left the store unattended one day, provides the requisite substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant was terminated due to misconduct (see, Matter of Douglas [Hartnett], 143 AD2d 458).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 871, 564 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-of-claim-of-brown-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack