In re the Claim of Chang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Chang

7 A.D.3d 908, 776 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6767

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

DecidedMay 13, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 908 (In re the Claim of Chang) 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 Chang, 7 A.D.3d 908, 776 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 6, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an executive steward at a resort hotel and his responsibilities included approving the time records of his subordinates. Claimant was discharged from his employment after it was discovered that he was altering the times punched on his subordinates’ time cards to reflect their scheduled work times rather than their actual arrival and departure times. It is well settled that an employee’s falsification of time records may constitute misconduct (see Matter of Kelly [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 539 [2001]). Here, claimant not only was counseled about complying with company policies and procedures, but was told by both the payroll manager and another director—who, claimant was aware, recently discharged another manager for similar conduct—that changing subordinates’ time cards to reflect different arrival and departure times was not permitted. Claimant’s denial that he was informed that such changes were prohibited and had been trained to alter the time sheets presented a credibility issue for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve [909]*909(see Matter of Sonzogni [Gilmor Glassworks—Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 939 [2003]; Matter of Trahan [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 664 [2000]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, 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 February 6, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an executive steward at a resort hotel and his responsibilities included approving the time records of his subordinates. Claimant was discharged from his employment after it was discovered that he was altering the times punched on his subordinates’ time cards to reflect their scheduled work times rather than their actual arrival and departure times. It is well settled that an employee’s falsification of time records may constitute misconduct (see Matter of Kelly [Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 539 [2001]). Here, claimant not only was counseled about complying with company policies and procedures, but was told by both the payroll manager and another director—who, claimant was aware, recently discharged another manager for similar conduct—that changing subordinates’ time cards to reflect different arrival and departure times was not permitted. Claimant’s denial that he was informed that such changes were prohibited and had been trained to alter the time sheets presented a credibility issue for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve [909]*909(see Matter of Sonzogni [Gilmor Glassworks—Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 939 [2003]; Matter of Trahan [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 664 [2000]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 908, 776 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-chang-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack