In re the Claim of Coaxum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Coaxum

300 A.D.2d 971, 750 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12672

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 971 (In re the Claim of Coaxum) 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 Coaxum, 300 A.D.2d 971, 750 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 11, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a senior division telephone operator after she extended her vacation without authorization from the employer. The record establishes that claimant’s request for four weeks’ vacation was denied by three supervisors due to shortage of staff and budget constraints. Although the employer authorized claimant to take a two-week vacation, she failed to return to work as scheduled and was discharged. Extension of a vacation without permission from one’s employer has been held to constitute misconduct (see Matter of Alvarez [Commissioner of Labor], 295 AD2d 742; Matter of Svetlich [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 762). Although claimant testified that she thought her vacation was approved because a coworker coordinated coverage for her shifts, three of claimant’s supervisors nevertheless had denied her request for such vacation. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see id.).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, 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 April 11, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a senior division telephone operator after she extended her vacation without authorization from the employer. The record establishes that claimant’s request for four weeks’ vacation was denied by three supervisors due to shortage of staff and budget constraints. Although the employer authorized claimant to take a two-week vacation, she failed to return to work as scheduled and was discharged. Extension of a vacation without permission from one’s employer has been held to constitute misconduct (see Matter of Alvarez [Commissioner of Labor], 295 AD2d 742; Matter of Svetlich [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 762). Although claimant testified that she thought her vacation was approved because a coworker coordinated coverage for her shifts, three of claimant’s supervisors nevertheless had denied her request for such vacation. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see id.).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 971, 750 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-coaxum-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack