In re the Claim of Frazier
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Morgan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re the Claim of Schnabel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re the Claim of Cooney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- In re the Claim of Lyczek (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- In re the Claim of Armbruster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
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 August 16, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a merchandising manager under disqualifying circumstances. The record reveals that claimant refused to comply with his supervisor’s directives and acted in contravention of the employer’s instructions. Under such circumstances, claimant’s repeated failure to abide by the employer’s reasonable requests constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cramer [Gerel Corp. — Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 725). Although claimant disagreed with the employer’s version of the events that led to his dismissal, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Pasquarosa [Euro Brokers — Commissioner of Labor], 260 AD2d 903, 904).
Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.