In re the Claim of Blickley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Blickley

247 A.D.2d 738, 669 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1693

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 738 (In re the Claim of Blickley) 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 Blickley, 247 A.D.2d 738, 669 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1693 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 22, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was a cable installer for a cable company and was paid on a piece work, per job basis, apparently based upon bills he submitted to the employer. He was discharged after a quality control investigation revealed that he had been engaging in improper billing practices despite prior warnings that such conduct could result in his termination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had been terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. It has been held that a violation of an employer’s policy of which the employee is aware may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream, Inc. — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 809; see, e.g., Matter of Chen [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 812) as does engaging in conduct which is potentially detrimental to an employer’s interests (see, Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932). Based on the testimony and evidence set forth in the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, 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 August 22, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was a cable installer for a cable company and was paid on a piece work, per job basis, apparently based upon bills he submitted to the employer. He was discharged after a quality control investigation revealed that he had been engaging in improper billing practices despite prior warnings that such conduct could result in his termination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had been terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. It has been held that a violation of an employer’s policy of which the employee is aware may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream, Inc. — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 809; see, e.g., Matter of Chen [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 812) as does engaging in conduct which is potentially detrimental to an employer’s interests (see, Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932). Based on the testimony and evidence set forth in the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 738, 669 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-blickley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack