In re the Claim of Conforti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Conforti

268 A.D.2d 663, 701 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 144

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 663 (In re the Claim of Conforti) 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 Conforti, 268 A.D.2d 663, 701 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 144 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 21, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment when, after having received warnings regarding his absences, he failed to contact his employer until 4:30 p.m. on October 12, 1998, 8V2 hours after his shift started. In our view, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged due to misconduct (see, Matter of Rodriguez [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 827). It is well established that a claimant’s unauthorized absences from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Burns [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 797). Claimant’s contention that his absence from work was excusable due to back pain and the prescription medicine he was taking merely raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Fahey [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 877).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 21, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment when, after having received warnings regarding his absences, he failed to contact his employer until 4:30 p.m. on October 12, 1998, 8V2 hours after his shift started. In our view, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was discharged due to misconduct (see, Matter of Rodriguez [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 827). It is well established that a claimant’s unauthorized absences from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Burns [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 797). Claimant’s contention that his absence from work was excusable due to back pain and the prescription medicine he was taking merely raised an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Fahey [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 877).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 663, 701 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-conforti-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack