In re the Claim of Hersh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hersh

268 A.D.2d 637, 700 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 637 (In re the Claim of Hersh) 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 Hersh, 268 A.D.2d 637, 700 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged [638]*638from her employment as a branch supervisor of a bank due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant authorized the issuance of bank drafts without adhering to the bank’s mandated hold policy. Testimony at the hearing revealed that claimant thereafter was warned not to violate the bank’s policy or she would be terminated. Subsequently, claimant again violated the bank’s policy in this regard. Given these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant’s failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878; Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, 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 July 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged [638]*638from her employment as a branch supervisor of a bank due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant authorized the issuance of bank drafts without adhering to the bank’s mandated hold policy. Testimony at the hearing revealed that claimant thereafter was warned not to violate the bank’s policy or she would be terminated. Subsequently, claimant again violated the bank’s policy in this regard. Given these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant’s failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878; Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 637, 700 N.Y.S.2d 599, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hersh-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack