In re the Claim of Foster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Foster

244 A.D.2d 628, 663 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11122

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 628 (In re the Claim of Foster) 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 Foster, 244 A.D.2d 628, 663 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 7, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed February 4, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was employed by the US Postal Service as a clerk and mail carrier. Her employment was terminated when, despite prior warnings that such conduct was unacceptable, claimant left work hours before the end of her shift without notifying or obtaining permission from her supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. The refusal to adhere to reasonable work hours constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cassaro [Sweeney], 221 AD2d 790; Matter of Dowd [Hartnett], 169 AD2d 867). We note that claimant’s contention that she obtained permission from her supervisor to leave early to attend to an emergency merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Carr [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 782). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and it will not be disturbed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 7, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed February 4, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was employed by the US Postal Service as a clerk and mail carrier. Her employment was terminated when, despite prior warnings that such conduct was unacceptable, claimant left work hours before the end of her shift without notifying or obtaining permission from her supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she was terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. The refusal to adhere to reasonable work hours constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cassaro [Sweeney], 221 AD2d 790; Matter of Dowd [Hartnett], 169 AD2d 867). We note that claimant’s contention that she obtained permission from her supervisor to leave early to attend to an emergency merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Carr [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 782). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and it will not be disturbed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 628, 663 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-foster-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack