In re the Claim of Ducat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ducat

231 A.D.2d 796, 647 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 796 (In re the Claim of Ducat) 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 Ducat, 231 A.D.2d 796, 647 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 27, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged for excessive tardiness from his position as a rehabilitative specialist, and the Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits upon the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant asserts that his lateness did not constitute misconduct because it was attributable to the fact that he had to bring his daughter to school before work. The record, however, discloses that claimant failed to undertake reasonable efforts to secure alternative child care arrangements and, further, those efforts that were undertaken were abandoned, at least in part, due fo claimant’s belief that he should spend time with his daughter in the morning. Additionally, the record reveals that claimant was consistently late for work despite his employer’s warnings that his continued tardiness would result in his dismissal. Therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was terminated for misconduct (see generally, Matter of Paul [Hartnett], 171 AD2d 910, lv denied 78 NY2d 852 [excessive lateness constitutes misconduct]).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. 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 February 27, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged for excessive tardiness from his position as a rehabilitative specialist, and the Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits upon the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant asserts that his lateness did not constitute misconduct because it was attributable to the fact that he had to bring his daughter to school before work. The record, however, discloses that claimant failed to undertake reasonable efforts to secure alternative child care arrangements and, further, those efforts that were undertaken were abandoned, at least in part, due fo claimant’s belief that he should spend time with his daughter in the morning. Additionally, the record reveals that claimant was consistently late for work despite his employer’s warnings that his continued tardiness would result in his dismissal. Therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was terminated for misconduct (see generally, Matter of Paul [Hartnett], 171 AD2d 910, lv denied 78 NY2d 852 [excessive lateness constitutes misconduct]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 796, 647 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ducat-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack