In re the Claim of Fowler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Fowler

242 A.D.2d 768, 661 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8512

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 768 (In re the Claim of Fowler) 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 Fowler, 242 A.D.2d 768, 661 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 15, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for the employer furniture company as a quality inspector and furniture repair person. His employment was terminated after the employer learned that on a day when claimant had obtained permission to be absent from work ostensibly to keep a doctor’s appointment, he was, in fact, at a job interview. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. The record discloses that on the date in question, claimant had just returned from a two-week disability leave with the result that his services were needed by his employer. Behavior that is detrimental to the employer’s interest has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 941) as has giving false reasons for an absence (see, Matter of Sanford [Levine], 52 AD2d 1024). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Peters, 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 15, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for the employer furniture company as a quality inspector and furniture repair person. His employment was terminated after the employer learned that on a day when claimant had obtained permission to be absent from work ostensibly to keep a doctor’s appointment, he was, in fact, at a job interview. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. The record discloses that on the date in question, claimant had just returned from a two-week disability leave with the result that his services were needed by his employer. Behavior that is detrimental to the employer’s interest has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 941) as has giving false reasons for an absence (see, Matter of Sanford [Levine], 52 AD2d 1024). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 768, 661 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-fowler-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack