In re the Claim of Enchavtegui

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Enchavtegui

173 A.D.2d 999, 569 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7551

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

DecidedMay 9, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 173 A.D.2d 999 (In re the Claim of Enchavtegui) 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 Enchavtegui, 173 A.D.2d 999, 569 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 29, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant lost his job as a mechanic after being absent for four successive days. Although the employer may have known that claimant was to be absent one or two of those days, claimant failed to call in and timely inform his supervisor of his continued absence. Claimant, who had a history of lateness and absenteeism, admitted that he had been counseled about the employer’s policy regarding punctuality and regular attendance. It has been held that unreported absences from work constitute misconduct warranting the employee’s disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Michelfelder [Ross] 80 AD2d 969; Matter of Rossano [Levine] 52 AD2d 1006).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur.

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 December 29, 1989, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant lost his job as a mechanic after being absent for four successive days. Although the employer may have known that claimant was to be absent one or two of those days, claimant failed to call in and timely inform his supervisor of his continued absence. Claimant, who had a history of lateness and absenteeism, admitted that he had been counseled about the employer’s policy regarding punctuality and regular attendance. It has been held that unreported absences from work constitute misconduct warranting the employee’s disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Michelfelder [Ross] 80 AD2d 969; Matter of Rossano [Levine] 52 AD2d 1006).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 999, 569 N.Y.S.2d 833, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-enchavtegui-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack