In re the Claim of Dimassimo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Dimassimo

231 A.D.2d 777, 646 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797

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

DecidedSeptember 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 777 (In re the Claim of Dimassimo) 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 Dimassimo, 231 A.D.2d 777, 646 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 29, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an electronics technician, was terminated from his position after his supervisor found him sleeping at his work station. The Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals from this decision arguing, inter alia, that his behavior did not amount to misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. Claimant admitted that he was sleeping at his work station but maintained that he did so during his lunch hour, not on company time. He acknowledged, however, that he knew his supervisor did not want him to sleep at his work station because of the negative impression it gave to customers who frequented the area. Given claimant’s deliberate violation of his supervisor’s policy against employees sleeping at their work stations, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was fired for misconduct (see, Matter of Andrews [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 429). We have considered claimant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, 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 June 29, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an electronics technician, was terminated from his position after his supervisor found him sleeping at his work station. The Board denied his application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals from this decision arguing, inter alia, that his behavior did not amount to misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. Claimant admitted that he was sleeping at his work station but maintained that he did so during his lunch hour, not on company time. He acknowledged, however, that he knew his supervisor did not want him to sleep at his work station because of the negative impression it gave to customers who frequented the area. Given claimant’s deliberate violation of his supervisor’s policy against employees sleeping at their work stations, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was fired for misconduct (see, Matter of Andrews [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 429). We have considered claimant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 777, 646 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-dimassimo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack