The board has found that claimant's discharge was precipitated by his being intoxicated during employment and that considering his position as an armed bank guard such action constituted misconduct. Such determinations are factual, and where as here there is only a dispute as to factual issues and the board's decision is supported by substantial evidence it must be affirmed by this court (Labor Law, § 623; e.g., Matter of Poveda ...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
