In re the Claim of Guy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guy

272 A.D.2d 709, 708 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5505

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

DecidedMay 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 709 (In re the Claim of Guy) 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 Guy, 272 A.D.2d 709, 708 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal [710]*710from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 11, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a salesman for a car dealership until he was discharged from his employment due to misconduct. It was found that claimant had breached his duty to his employer by retaining a customer’s car and license plates for his own use and concealing these activities from his employer. Conduct which reflects adversely on an employer’s integrity or is potentially detrimental to an employer’s interests has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932; Matter of Sinker [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 878, affd 89 NY2d 485). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost his job due to disqualifying misconduct, we affirm.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Mugglin, 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 [710]*710from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 11, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a salesman for a car dealership until he was discharged from his employment due to misconduct. It was found that claimant had breached his duty to his employer by retaining a customer’s car and license plates for his own use and concealing these activities from his employer. Conduct which reflects adversely on an employer’s integrity or is potentially detrimental to an employer’s interests has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 AD2d 932; Matter of Sinker [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 878, affd 89 NY2d 485). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost his job due to disqualifying misconduct, we affirm.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 709, 708 N.Y.S.2d 907, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guy-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack