In re the Claim of Greene

252 A.D.2d 622, 675 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8069
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 2, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 622 (In re the Claim of Greene) 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 Greene, 252 A.D.2d 622, 675 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 12, 1997, 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, a biller for an advertising company who had been [623]*623selected for jury duty, was terminated from her employment after she failed to report to work when jury duty was not scheduled. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances. Unauthorized absences from work, as well as the failure to follow an employer’s established procedures regarding notification of absences, may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Sahagian [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 733). The record reveals that claimant was directed to report to work when jury duty was not scheduled and to notify the employer if she intended to be absent for any other reason. Despite her knowledge of this policy, claimant failed to notify the employer when she was absent on three days that the jury was not scheduled to meet. Claimant’s assertion that she properly notified her employer of the absences created a credibility issue which the Board was entitled to resolve (see, Matter of Williams [Sweeney], 241 AD2d 741, appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 848). We have examined claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Jones
307 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Maxwell
305 A.D.2d 954 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Lyubinskaya
288 A.D.2d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Jacque
270 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Yap
257 A.D.2d 831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D.2d 622, 675 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-greene-nyappdiv-1998.