In re the Claim of Dintino
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Cuccia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of Van Beek (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
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 June 28, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a residential counselor due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was on probationary status for excessive tardiness and absenteeism and had been informed that any further tardiness would not be tolerated. When claimant then called in late to work because she had overslept, she was discharged from her employment. Inasmuch as “[c]on-
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.