In re the Claim of Gil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gil

73 A.D.3d 1371, 901 N.Y.S.2d 397

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

DecidedMay 20, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1371 (In re the Claim of Gil) 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 Gil, 73 A.D.3d 1371, 901 N.Y.S.2d 397 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 24, 2009, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[1372]*1372Substantial evidence in the record supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant’s failure to take a lunch break constituted disqualifying misconduct. After becoming concerned about claimant’s penchant for leaving work to run personal errands and skipping lunch in an attempt to make up the lost time, her supervisor directed that she take lunch at a specific time and use leave time for other absences. When claimant thereafter arrived late to work without charging leave and failed to take her lunch break, her employment was terminated. While claimant’s account of events differed to some extent, the Board properly credited evidence that she refused to obey reasonable rules set by her employer despite warnings to do so and determined that, as a result, her actions constituted misconduct barring the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Mills [Unisource Worldwide, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 845 [2004]; Matter of Reichert [LOSCO Group—Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 709, 709-710 [1998]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, 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 24, 2009, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[1372]*1372Substantial evidence in the record supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant’s failure to take a lunch break constituted disqualifying misconduct. After becoming concerned about claimant’s penchant for leaving work to run personal errands and skipping lunch in an attempt to make up the lost time, her supervisor directed that she take lunch at a specific time and use leave time for other absences. When claimant thereafter arrived late to work without charging leave and failed to take her lunch break, her employment was terminated. While claimant’s account of events differed to some extent, the Board properly credited evidence that she refused to obey reasonable rules set by her employer despite warnings to do so and determined that, as a result, her actions constituted misconduct barring the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Mills [Unisource Worldwide, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 845 [2004]; Matter of Reichert [LOSCO Group—Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 709, 709-710 [1998]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1371, 901 N.Y.S.2d 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gil-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack