In re the Claim of Costanza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Costanza

176 A.D.2d 412, 574 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12390

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 412 (In re the Claim of Costanza) 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 Costanza, 176 A.D.2d 412, 574 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 26, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant admitted that he felt "uneasy” being watched by a surveillance camera while he worked and that he rendered the camera inoperative by covering the lens with a piece of [413]*413paper. He also conceded that he was aware that the camera was there for security reasons. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was entitled to conclude that claimant’s actions violated a standard of behavior that the employer had a reasonable right to expect from him as an employee (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743). Accordingly, the decision that claimant was guilty of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of De Cherro [Ross], 83 AD2d 709, lv denied 55 NY2d 603).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Crew III, 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 November 26, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant admitted that he felt "uneasy” being watched by a surveillance camera while he worked and that he rendered the camera inoperative by covering the lens with a piece of [413]*413paper. He also conceded that he was aware that the camera was there for security reasons. Under the circumstances, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was entitled to conclude that claimant’s actions violated a standard of behavior that the employer had a reasonable right to expect from him as an employee (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743). Accordingly, the decision that claimant was guilty of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of De Cherro [Ross], 83 AD2d 709, lv denied 55 NY2d 603).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 412, 574 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-costanza-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack