In re the Claim of Chiou

22 A.D.3d 1024, 802 N.Y.S.2d 568
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 27, 2005·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 19, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked at a bank from January 2003 until the end of May 2004. On a day when his sales manager was not at work, he asked for a day off following Memorial Day weekend. The service manager, who was in charge in the sales manager’s absence, denied his request based upon instructions left by the sales manager concerning staffing. Claimant reported to work on the day he had requested off, but left at 1:00 p.m. without authorization. As a result, he was terminated from his position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

We affirm. “It is well settled that an employee’s unauthorized absence from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Owens [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 608, 609 [2003] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Jacque [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 541 [2000]). Here, claimant conceded that, although his request had been denied, he left work without prior approval to attend two appointments, one medical and the second personal. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

[1025] Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, 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

In re the Claim of Chiou, 22 A.D.3d 1024, 802 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

22 A.D.3d 1024 (In re the Claim of Chiou) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Claim of Syed
61 A.D.3d 1197 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Britter
54 A.D.3d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Sedlack
40 A.D.3d 1235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)