In re the Claim of Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cramer

265 A.D.2d 725, 696 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10681

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 725 (In re the Claim of Cramer) 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 Cramer, 265 A.D.2d 725, 696 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 30, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a night doorman for a residential building management company under disqualifying circumstances. The record reveals that claimant repeatedly blocked the outer doors by inserting a baseball bat through the door handles or locking them with a bicycle chain, which prevented tenants from immediately accessing the building late at night. Claimant’s conduct was in contravention of the employer’s repeated security instructions that the outer doors must remain unlocked and unobstructed at all times. Under these circumstances, claimant’s insubordinate conduct of failing to abide by the employer’s repeated directive constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Seguin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 747), despite claimant’s proffered excuse for his actions. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., 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 July 30, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a night doorman for a residential building management company under disqualifying circumstances. The record reveals that claimant repeatedly blocked the outer doors by inserting a baseball bat through the door handles or locking them with a bicycle chain, which prevented tenants from immediately accessing the building late at night. Claimant’s conduct was in contravention of the employer’s repeated security instructions that the outer doors must remain unlocked and unobstructed at all times. Under these circumstances, claimant’s insubordinate conduct of failing to abide by the employer’s repeated directive constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Seguin [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 747), despite claimant’s proffered excuse for his actions. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 725, 696 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cramer-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack