In re the Claim of Fairley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fairley

3 A.D.3d 781, 771 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 620

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 3 A.D.3d 781 (In re the Claim of Fairley) 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 Fairley, 3 A.D.3d 781, 771 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 20, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a home health aide working the night shift until she was discharged for sleeping on the job. Claimant testified that the patient had a cot set up in the back room for the aides and, notwithstanding the employer’s policy prohibiting such conduct, claimant admitted that she occasionally napped while the patient was sleeping. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 931 [1998]; Matter of Dimassimo [Eastman Kodak Co.—Sweeney], 231 AD2d 777 [1996]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 20, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a home health aide working the night shift until she was discharged for sleeping on the job. Claimant testified that the patient had a cot set up in the back room for the aides and, notwithstanding the employer’s policy prohibiting such conduct, claimant admitted that she occasionally napped while the patient was sleeping. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 931 [1998]; Matter of Dimassimo [Eastman Kodak Co.—Sweeney], 231 AD2d 777 [1996]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 781, 771 N.Y.S.2d 558, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fairley-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack