In re the Claim of Ahmed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ahmed

254 A.D.2d 561, 679 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10908

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 561 (In re the Claim of Ahmed) 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 Ahmed, 254 A.D.2d 561, 679 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 5, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed cleaning tables at a restaurant until he was discharged for violating the employer’s policy requiring employees to immediately give management any property left behind by a customer. The record establishes that, despite the fact that he knew of the employer’s policy and had complied [562]*562with it in the past, claimant pocketed a portable electronic device belonging to a customer and failed to return it until he was confronted by management. This proof constitutes substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s established policy has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Claimant’s exculpatory explanation for the incident merely created a credibility issue for the Board’s resolution (see, Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and GrafFeo, 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 January 5, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed cleaning tables at a restaurant until he was discharged for violating the employer’s policy requiring employees to immediately give management any property left behind by a customer. The record establishes that, despite the fact that he knew of the employer’s policy and had complied [562]*562with it in the past, claimant pocketed a portable electronic device belonging to a customer and failed to return it until he was confronted by management. This proof constitutes substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s established policy has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Claimant’s exculpatory explanation for the incident merely created a credibility issue for the Board’s resolution (see, Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and GrafFeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 561, 679 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ahmed-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack