In re the Claim of Guerrerio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guerrerio

269 A.D.2d 659, 701 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1068

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 659 (In re the Claim of Guerrerio) 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 Guerrerio, 269 A.D.2d 659, 701 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 9, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a vice-president and branch manager for a bank after she failed to follow the bank’s code of conduct concerning the processing of transactions involving family members of a bank employee. The code of conduct, inter alia, required employees to refer transactions involving their family members to another employee of equal or senior rank, and required such transactions to be “conducted on terms not more favorable than those extended to others”. Claimant was discharged after it was discovered that she had authority over accounts maintained by her sister and brother-in-law and, on numerous occasions, approved overdrafts and waived bank fees for them. Given claimant’s knowing failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and in view of the circumstances surrounding her termination, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that, as a result of this misconduct, she is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878; Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736; Matter of Titus [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919). Claimant’s remain[660]*660ing contentions have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 September 9, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a vice-president and branch manager for a bank after she failed to follow the bank’s code of conduct concerning the processing of transactions involving family members of a bank employee. The code of conduct, inter alia, required employees to refer transactions involving their family members to another employee of equal or senior rank, and required such transactions to be “conducted on terms not more favorable than those extended to others”. Claimant was discharged after it was discovered that she had authority over accounts maintained by her sister and brother-in-law and, on numerous occasions, approved overdrafts and waived bank fees for them. Given claimant’s knowing failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and in view of the circumstances surrounding her termination, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that, as a result of this misconduct, she is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878; Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736; Matter of Titus [Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919). Claimant’s remain[660]*660ing contentions have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 659, 701 N.Y.S.2d 753, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guerrerio-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack