Leytman v. Glass
225 A.D.2d 550, 639 N.Y.2d 721, 639 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1945
Opinion
[551]*551The determination that the petitioner wilfully and without good cause violated work relief rules by failing to report to his worksite was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Tillman v Fahey, 53 NY2d 815; Matter of Van Leuvan v Blum, 73 AD2d 1003). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leytman v. Glass, 225 A.D.2d 550, 639 N.Y.2d 721, 639 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
225 A.D.2d 550 (Leytman v. Glass) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Tillman v. Fahey
422 N.E.2d 581 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
Van Leuvan v. Blum
73 A.D.2d 1003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)