In re the Claim of Cordova

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cordova

277 A.D.2d 623, 715 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11329

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 623 (In re the Claim of Cordova) 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 Cordova, 277 A.D.2d 623, 715 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 2, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed August 4, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was discharged from her position as program director of a senior citizen center when, in violation of the employer’s established procedures, she purchased furniture without soliciting bids from vendors or obtaining the requisite written approval. Claimant was on probation at the time as the result of various complaints concerning her work performance. Given claimant’s knowing disregard of the employer’s purchasing policy and prior conduct, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Celeiro [Dentsply Equip. — Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 599; Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932, 933).

Furthermore, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied due process because the manager of the department which provided outside funding for the senior citizen center, whose authorization was needed for the furniture purchase, failed to respond to a subpoena. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that the manager’s testimony was unnecessary given claimant’s admission that she purchased the furniture in error and failed to follow the established purchasing procedures (see, Matter of O’Connor [Howell — Hartnett], 165 AD2d 946, 948; cf., Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 773, 774).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 2, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed August 4, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was discharged from her position as program director of a senior citizen center when, in violation of the employer’s established procedures, she purchased furniture without soliciting bids from vendors or obtaining the requisite written approval. Claimant was on probation at the time as the result of various complaints concerning her work performance. Given claimant’s knowing disregard of the employer’s purchasing policy and prior conduct, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Celeiro [Dentsply Equip. — Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 599; Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932, 933).

Furthermore, we reject claimant’s assertion that she was denied due process because the manager of the department which provided outside funding for the senior citizen center, whose authorization was needed for the furniture purchase, failed to respond to a subpoena. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that the manager’s testimony was unnecessary given claimant’s admission that she purchased the furniture in error and failed to follow the established purchasing procedures (see, Matter of O’Connor [Howell — Hartnett], 165 AD2d 946, 948; cf., Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 773, 774).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 623, 715 N.Y.S.2d 551, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cordova-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack