In re the Claim of Adams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Adams

2 A.D.3d 1257, 768 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14085

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 1257 (In re the Claim of Adams) 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

In re the Claim of Adams, 2 A.D.3d 1257, 768 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 2003, 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, an in-home counselor for mentally impaired adults and children, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant left a client’s residence without first notifying the employer and, upon her return, was unable to gain reentry into the apartment building. Claimant failed to call the employer or explain the situation for two days, contrary to the employer’s established policies. The employer thereafter discharged claimant for abandoning her assignment. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered excuse for the violation, in view of claimant’s knowing disregard for the employer’s established policies and procedures, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Jones [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 801 [2001]; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684 [1997]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 2003, 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, an in-home counselor for mentally impaired adults and children, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant left a client’s residence without first notifying the employer and, upon her return, was unable to gain reentry into the apartment building. Claimant failed to call the employer or explain the situation for two days, contrary to the employer’s established policies. The employer thereafter discharged claimant for abandoning her assignment. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered excuse for the violation, in view of claimant’s knowing disregard for the employer’s established policies and procedures, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Jones [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 801 [2001]; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684 [1997]).

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 1257, 768 N.Y.S.2d 839, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-adams-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack