In re the Claim of Derian

239 A.D.2d 722, 657 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5260
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 722 (In re the Claim of Derian) 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 Derian, 239 A.D.2d 722, 657 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 13, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a store manager until he was discharged from his employment for violating a company policy requiring that the store’s safe be kept securely locked at all times. Claimant’s failure to abide by this rule resulted in the theft of $1,467 from the store’s safe. Following his discharge, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, stating on his application that he had lost his employment due to corporate downsizing. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal [723]*723Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct and that he had made willful false statements to obtain benefits.

We affirm. Failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rooney [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 775; Matter of Kobrin [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 625, 626). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant lost his employment due to such disqualifying misconduct and that he made willful false statements to obtain them. To the extent that claimant provided testimony to the contrary, this merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 Petrosov
284 A.D.2d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Gordon
278 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Roman
277 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Hartman
257 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Egelberg
244 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Halt
243 A.D.2d 805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.D.2d 722, 657 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-derian-nyappdiv-1997.