In re the Claim of Chapman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Chapman

10 A.D.3d 754, 781 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 754 (In re the Claim of Chapman) 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 Chapman, 10 A.D.3d 754, 781 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 23, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant’s employment as a maintenance technician was terminated after he was arrested for violating the terms of his probation and sentenced to six months in jail. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. We have held that unavailability for work due to incarceration can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Turley [American Axle & Mfg.—Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 763, 764 [2002]; Matter of Matyjczuk [Delphi Automotive Sys. Div. of Gen. Motors Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 847, 848 [1999]). Here, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision given claimant’s incarceration and probation restrictions which precluded him from reporting to work.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, 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 January 23, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant’s employment as a maintenance technician was terminated after he was arrested for violating the terms of his probation and sentenced to six months in jail. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. We have held that unavailability for work due to incarceration can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Turley [American Axle & Mfg.—Commissioner of Labor], 296 AD2d 763, 764 [2002]; Matter of Matyjczuk [Delphi Automotive Sys. Div. of Gen. Motors Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 847, 848 [1999]). Here, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision given claimant’s incarceration and probation restrictions which precluded him from reporting to work.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 754, 781 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-chapman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack