In re the Claim of Blaine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Blaine

244 A.D.2d 753, 664 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11785

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 753 (In re the Claim of Blaine) 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 Blaine, 244 A.D.2d 753, 664 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June .18, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant’s employment as a salesperson at an electronics store was terminated after it was discovered that he had repeatedly violated the employer’s policy requiring employees to obtain a manager’s approval before purchasing merchandise for their own use. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s infractions rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. The record discloses that claimant knowingly and repeatedly violated a reasonable workplace rule, established by the employer for the purpose of inventory control. This Court has held that an employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s rule may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818), especially in cases where the violation is contrary to the employer’s interest (see, Matter of Naymark [Tanagraphics— [754]*754Sweeney], 232 AD2d 804). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling of disqualification, it will not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, 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 June .18, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant’s employment as a salesperson at an electronics store was terminated after it was discovered that he had repeatedly violated the employer’s policy requiring employees to obtain a manager’s approval before purchasing merchandise for their own use. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant’s infractions rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. The record discloses that claimant knowingly and repeatedly violated a reasonable workplace rule, established by the employer for the purpose of inventory control. This Court has held that an employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s rule may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818), especially in cases where the violation is contrary to the employer’s interest (see, Matter of Naymark [Tanagraphics— [754]*754Sweeney], 232 AD2d 804). As substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling of disqualification, it will not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 753, 664 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-blaine-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack