In re the Claim of Garnica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Garnica

261 A.D.2d 765, 689 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346

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

DecidedMay 13, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 765 (In re the Claim of Garnica) 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 Garnica, 261 A.D.2d 765, 689 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a laundry attendant as a result of failing to notify the employer of a practical joke whereby sewing machine oil was placed in a coworker’s drinking cup. Although claimant did not personally place the hazardous substance in the co-worker’s cup, she nevertheless was aware that the “joke” was being perpetrated. Contrary to the employer’s established policy, claimant failed to report the potentially dangerous situation to the employer. Given claimant’s conduct, which was detrimental to the employer’s best interest and contrary to the standards of behavior that the employer had a right to expect, together with the potentially serious consequences of the incident, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from her employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Rohnke [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 812, 813). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her assertion that her conduct merely constituted poor judgment, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, 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 June 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a laundry attendant as a result of failing to notify the employer of a practical joke whereby sewing machine oil was placed in a coworker’s drinking cup. Although claimant did not personally place the hazardous substance in the co-worker’s cup, she nevertheless was aware that the “joke” was being perpetrated. Contrary to the employer’s established policy, claimant failed to report the potentially dangerous situation to the employer. Given claimant’s conduct, which was detrimental to the employer’s best interest and contrary to the standards of behavior that the employer had a right to expect, together with the potentially serious consequences of the incident, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from her employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Rohnke [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 812, 813). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her assertion that her conduct merely constituted poor judgment, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 765, 689 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-garnica-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack