In re the Claim of Alexander

3 A.D.3d 827, 771 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 893
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 827 (In re the Claim of Alexander) 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 Alexander, 3 A.D.3d 827, 771 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 18, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant attended a benefits seminar at which one of the presenters inadvertently left her cell phone on a cabinet. When the presenter realized later in the day that her cell phone was missing, an investigation ensued, which ultimately resulted in claimant being discharged from employment for stealing the cell phone, making several calls (including long distance calls) and providing misleading information to investigators. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits due to disqualifying misconduct.

We affirm. “An employee’s apparent dishonesty . . . can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Huggins [Samaritan Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 877, 878 [1999] [citations omitted]). Here, the calls in question were linked to claimant, and testimony at the hearing established that he offered to reimburse the owner of the telephone for any charges incurred. Claimant’s denial that he was responsible for the theft of the cell phone presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Washington [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 896 [2003]). In view of the foregoing and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see id.; Matter of Barrientos [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 926 [1993]).

[828]*828Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose 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

Related

Matter of Jean (Commr. of Labor)
135 A.D.3d 1281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re the Claim of Ackermann
31 A.D.3d 1040 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Smith
23 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Keeler
15 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Olmstead
8 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 A.D.3d 827, 771 N.Y.S.2d 259, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-alexander-nyappdiv-2004.