In re the Claim of Forde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Forde

253 A.D.2d 925, 677 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9348

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 925 (In re the Claim of Forde) 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 Forde, 253 A.D.2d 925, 677 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 21, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a control center operator for a security service provider after he failed to scan an employee’s boots through the X-ray machine, despite having previously been warned about his noncompliance with the employer’s policies. Claimant had been informed that the X-ray procedure was to be strictly enforced. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits due to misconduct. An employee’s deliberate disregard of an employer’s policies has been held to constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Blickley [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 738; Matter of Limarzi [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 750). Furthermore, the record fails to support claimant’s contention that he was denied the right to subpoena or call witnesses at the hearing (see, Matter of Acabeo [New York City Bd. of Educ.—Sweeney], 234 AD2d 851). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

[926]*926Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 April 21, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a control center operator for a security service provider after he failed to scan an employee’s boots through the X-ray machine, despite having previously been warned about his noncompliance with the employer’s policies. Claimant had been informed that the X-ray procedure was to be strictly enforced. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits due to misconduct. An employee’s deliberate disregard of an employer’s policies has been held to constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Blickley [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 738; Matter of Limarzi [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 750). Furthermore, the record fails to support claimant’s contention that he was denied the right to subpoena or call witnesses at the hearing (see, Matter of Acabeo [New York City Bd. of Educ.—Sweeney], 234 AD2d 851). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

[926]*926Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 925, 677 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-forde-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack