In re the Claim of Berry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Berry

4 A.D.3d 664, 771 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1749

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 664 (In re the Claim of Berry) 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 Berry, 4 A.D.3d 664, 771 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 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 lost her [665]*665employment as a senior consumer banker due to misconduct. Although claimant had never received a prior warning for violating any of the employer’s policies, claimant admitted to violating the employer’s known policy not to accept a check without verifying the endorsements when presented with a check bearing two endorsements. The check was later returned upon a claim that the second endorsement was a forgery, thereby exposing the employer to a potential loss of over $53,000. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant’s conduct rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct inasmuch as such conduct was potentially detrimental to the employer’s interest (see Matter of Cuello [Commissioner of Labor], 267 AD2d 553 [1999]; Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878, 879 [1999]; Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736, 737 [1996]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, 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 March 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 lost her [665]*665employment as a senior consumer banker due to misconduct. Although claimant had never received a prior warning for violating any of the employer’s policies, claimant admitted to violating the employer’s known policy not to accept a check without verifying the endorsements when presented with a check bearing two endorsements. The check was later returned upon a claim that the second endorsement was a forgery, thereby exposing the employer to a potential loss of over $53,000. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision that claimant’s conduct rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct inasmuch as such conduct was potentially detrimental to the employer’s interest (see Matter of Cuello [Commissioner of Labor], 267 AD2d 553 [1999]; Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878, 879 [1999]; Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736, 737 [1996]).

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 664, 771 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-berry-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack