In re the Claim of Glinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Glinski

21 A.D.3d 1201, 801 N.Y.S.2d 94

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1201 (In re the Claim of Glinski) 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 Glinski, 21 A.D.3d 1201, 801 N.Y.S.2d 94 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 27, 2004, which ruled that claimant was [1202]*1202disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a consumer electronics technician when, despite having been previously warned about insubordinate behavior, he left in disregard of his manager’s directive to return to his bench and continue working. Claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he engaged in disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. It is well settled that leaving work without authorization can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Ferrar [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 766 [2004]; Matter of Spinel [Commissioner of Labor], 2 AD3d 1133 [2003]). Moreover, claimant’s failure to comply with the manager’s reasonable request to return to work, particularly in light of the fact that claimant has been previously warned about his insubordinate behavior, amounted to disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Chillious [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 655 [2004]; Matter of Goodrich [Raymond Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 720 [2003]). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions, including that he was denied the right to submit relevant documentary evidence, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 May 27, 2004, which ruled that claimant was [1202]*1202disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a consumer electronics technician when, despite having been previously warned about insubordinate behavior, he left in disregard of his manager’s directive to return to his bench and continue working. Claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he engaged in disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. It is well settled that leaving work without authorization can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Ferrar [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 766 [2004]; Matter of Spinel [Commissioner of Labor], 2 AD3d 1133 [2003]). Moreover, claimant’s failure to comply with the manager’s reasonable request to return to work, particularly in light of the fact that claimant has been previously warned about his insubordinate behavior, amounted to disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Chillious [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 655 [2004]; Matter of Goodrich [Raymond Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 720 [2003]). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions, including that he was denied the right to submit relevant documentary evidence, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1201, 801 N.Y.S.2d 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-glinski-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack