In re the Claim of Creary

254 A.D.2d 644, 679 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11515
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 29, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 644 (In re the Claim of Creary) 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 Creary, 254 A.D.2d 644, 679 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11515 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 23, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Discharged from her position as a community mental health aide, claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board oh the ground that she was terminated for misconduct. We reject claimant’s contention that this decision is not supported by substantial evidence. The record indicates that claimant ushered a violent patient into his room after he attacked a visitor and then struck the patient in the back of the head when he was simply standing in a nonthreatening posture. Although claimant denied striking the patient, her testimony was contradicted by a co-worker; thus, the Board was pre[645]*645sented with a credibility issue which it was free to resolve against her (see, Matter of Dennis [Westgate Nursing Home— Sweeney], 233 AD2d 730, lv denied 89 NY2d 811). It is well settled that “[flailing to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s best interests constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Given claimant’s awareness of the employer’s rule prohibiting the use of excessive force on patients, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision affirming claimant’s discharge for misconduct.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Spain, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Thompson
275 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Singh
273 A.D.2d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Campbell
271 A.D.2d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Prairie
265 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Johnson
257 A.D.2d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 644, 679 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-creary-nyappdiv-1998.