In re the Claim of Ali

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ali

302 A.D.2d 787, 754 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1496

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 787 (In re the Claim of Ali) 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 Ali, 302 A.D.2d 787, 754 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1496 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 15, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as the sole support staff for an attorney. Part of claimant’s duties included preparing checks to be signed by the employer. Less than a month after starting her job, claimant was discharged after she twice signed the employer’s name to payroll checks. Although claimant maintained that she was authorized to sign the employer’s name on the payroll checks, the employer testified that no person other than herself was an authorized signatory on the firm account and that claimant was not permitted even to sign letters on the employer’s behalf without adding her own initials. Notwithstanding the fact that claimant was entitled to the paychecks, her conduct of signing checks without authorization, once while the employer was present at the office and another time when the employer was on vacation, was contrary to the standards of behavior which the employer had a right to expect (see Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743; Matter of Ripley [Buckbee-Mears Cortland — Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 877). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct, it will not be disturbed.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 July 15, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as the sole support staff for an attorney. Part of claimant’s duties included preparing checks to be signed by the employer. Less than a month after starting her job, claimant was discharged after she twice signed the employer’s name to payroll checks. Although claimant maintained that she was authorized to sign the employer’s name on the payroll checks, the employer testified that no person other than herself was an authorized signatory on the firm account and that claimant was not permitted even to sign letters on the employer’s behalf without adding her own initials. Notwithstanding the fact that claimant was entitled to the paychecks, her conduct of signing checks without authorization, once while the employer was present at the office and another time when the employer was on vacation, was contrary to the standards of behavior which the employer had a right to expect (see Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743; Matter of Ripley [Buckbee-Mears Cortland — Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 877). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct, it will not be disturbed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 787, 754 N.Y.S.2d 923, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ali-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack