In re the Claim of Hamilton

30 A.D.3d 813, 816 N.Y.S.2d 388
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.D.3d 813 (In re the Claim of Hamilton) 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 Hamilton, 30 A.D.3d 813, 816 N.Y.S.2d 388 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

[814]*814Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant lost his employment as a van driver for a manufacturer’s representative due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant failed to comply with the employer’s directive that he check his messages every two hours and promptly respond to any messages. Furthermore, claimant was on final warning for previously failing to check in with the employer and was aware that any further violations could lead to immediate dismissal. Inasmuch as failure to comply with an employer’s reasonable request can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Tian Xing Xing [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 747, 748 [2005]; Matter of Lyczek [Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 797 [2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 700 [2002]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision. Claimant’s proffered excuse that he was unable to contact the employer, despite having access to a cell phone, created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Adams [Commissioner of Labor], 6 AD3d 856 [2004]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 Barnes
41 A.D.3d 1125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 A.D.3d 813, 816 N.Y.S.2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hamilton-nyappdiv-2006.