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
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 4, 1996
StatusPublished
This text of 225 A.D.2d 550 (Leytman v. Glass) 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
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).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
225 A.D.2d 550, 639 N.Y.2d 721, 639 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leytman-v-glass-nyappdiv-1996.