In re the Claim of Gibson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gibson

250 A.D.2d 906, 672 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5369

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

DecidedMay 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 906 (In re the Claim of Gibson) 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 Gibson, 250 A.D.2d 906, 672 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 31, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Following a dispute with a client, claimant, a security receptionist, was informed by her supervisor on July 15, 1994 [907]*907that she was being taken off this assignment and directed to report to work the following week for a new one. On the morning of July 18, 1994, however, claimant personally contacted the former client to discuss the loss of her assignment. Claimant was thereafter discharged for violating the employer’s rule prohibiting employees from addressing questions regarding, inter alia, assignments with clients. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant lost her job under disqualifying circumstances and we find substantial evidence in the record to support that determination. It is well settled that failure to comply with an employer’s established policies and acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s best interests can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). There is evidence that claimant was aware, or should have been aware, of the employer’s rule and her exculpatory explanation for her conduct merely raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932, 933).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, 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 December 31, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Following a dispute with a client, claimant, a security receptionist, was informed by her supervisor on July 15, 1994 [907]*907that she was being taken off this assignment and directed to report to work the following week for a new one. On the morning of July 18, 1994, however, claimant personally contacted the former client to discuss the loss of her assignment. Claimant was thereafter discharged for violating the employer’s rule prohibiting employees from addressing questions regarding, inter alia, assignments with clients. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant lost her job under disqualifying circumstances and we find substantial evidence in the record to support that determination. It is well settled that failure to comply with an employer’s established policies and acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s best interests can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). There is evidence that claimant was aware, or should have been aware, of the employer’s rule and her exculpatory explanation for her conduct merely raised a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932, 933).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 906, 672 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gibson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack