In re the Claim of Heeb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Heeb

242 A.D.2d 771, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8525

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

DecidedSeptember 4, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 771 (In re the Claim of Heeb) 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 Heeb, 242 A.D.2d 771, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 7, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a machine operator at a bakery. She was discharged due to her excessive absences from work which continued even after she received a final warning that additional absences would result in the termination of her employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. We affirm. Excessive absences following written warnings have been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Scott [Hudacs], 205 AD2d 811; Matter of Gonzales [Phipps Houses Servs.—Hudacs], 202 AD2d 812). Claimant’s assertion that she notified the employer regarding her final absences and that they were occasioned by a medical disability raised credibility issues that were within the province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Franco [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 577). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision which is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 7, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a machine operator at a bakery. She was discharged due to her excessive absences from work which continued even after she received a final warning that additional absences would result in the termination of her employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. We affirm. Excessive absences following written warnings have been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Scott [Hudacs], 205 AD2d 811; Matter of Gonzales [Phipps Houses Servs.—Hudacs], 202 AD2d 812). Claimant’s assertion that she notified the employer regarding her final absences and that they were occasioned by a medical disability raised credibility issues that were within the province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Franco [Hudacs], 207 AD2d 577). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision which is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Casey, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 771, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1008, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-heeb-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack