In re the Claim of Michelfelder
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Kessler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- In re the Claim of O'Grady (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- In re the Claim of Caravan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- In re the Claim of Gaines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- In re the Claim of Briones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- In re the Claim of Tocantins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- In re the Claim of Helwig (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- In re the Claim of Enchavtegui (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- In re the Claim of Montuori (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- In re the Claim of Head (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- In re the Claim of Lawson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 5, 1979, which reversed the decision of an Administrative Law Judge and reinstated the determination of the local office disqualifying claimant from benefits because of misconduct. When this matter was before us originally, we withheld determination for 20 days pending notification as to whether an application for reopening would be made to the board. Both the Industrial Commissioner and claimant have advised that no such application will be made. Accordingly, we proceed to the merits. By initial determination, the Industrial Commissioner held claimant to be ineligible for benefits because he lost his employment as a store detective due to misconduct (Labor Law, § 593, subd 3). The misconduct found was claimant’s failure to call in on April 4, 1979 to report that he would be absent due to illness after having been warned that he was required to call in prior to the commencement of his shift. Claimant sought review of this determination and it was subsequently overruled by an Administrative Law Judge who found that claimant had a reasonable explanation for his failure to report and that, in view of his exemplary work record, his actions did not constitute misconduct. Upon an
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.