In re the Claim of Balay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Balay

111 A.D.3d 1016, 974 N.Y.S.2d 307

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

DecidedNovember 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 1016 (In re the Claim of Balay) 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 Balay, 111 A.D.3d 1016, 974 N.Y.S.2d 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 6, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a security guard, lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct and was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The Board credited testimony that claimant was terminated after he repeatedly used his personal cell phone while he was working, despite warnings not to (see Matter of Dzaba [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 907, 907 [2004]). Inasmuch as a knowing violation of an established workplace policy may constitute disqualifying misconduct, particularly where a claimant has received prior warnings about that behavior, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Burt [Rapid Response Monitoring Servs., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 107 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2013]; Matter of Dzaba [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d at 907).

Eeters, EJ., Rose, Stein and Garry, 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 February 6, 2013, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a security guard, lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct and was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The Board credited testimony that claimant was terminated after he repeatedly used his personal cell phone while he was working, despite warnings not to (see Matter of Dzaba [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 907, 907 [2004]). Inasmuch as a knowing violation of an established workplace policy may constitute disqualifying misconduct, particularly where a claimant has received prior warnings about that behavior, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Burt [Rapid Response Monitoring Servs., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 107 AD3d 1284, 1285 [2013]; Matter of Dzaba [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d at 907).

Eeters, EJ., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 1016, 974 N.Y.S.2d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-balay-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack