In re the Claim of Huggins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Huggins

258 A.D.2d 877, 684 N.Y.S.2d 73

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 877 (In re the Claim of Huggins) 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 Huggins, 258 A.D.2d 877, 684 N.Y.S.2d 73 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 28, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an environmental services worker for a medical center until he was discharged from his employment for taking food from the facility’s cafeteria on more than one occasion in violation of the employer’s policy against theft. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board overruled a determination of the Administrative Law Judge and found that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. An employee’s apparent dishonesty or failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Kinch [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 748, 749; Matter of Rooney [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 775). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Contrary to claimant’s argument, the Board was within its authority in crediting the testimony of the cafeteria cashier who reported the thefts as opposed to claimant’s general denial of wrongdoing (see, Matter of Horton [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 1103). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., 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 August 28, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an environmental services worker for a medical center until he was discharged from his employment for taking food from the facility’s cafeteria on more than one occasion in violation of the employer’s policy against theft. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board overruled a determination of the Administrative Law Judge and found that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. An employee’s apparent dishonesty or failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Kinch [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 748, 749; Matter of Rooney [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 775). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. Contrary to claimant’s argument, the Board was within its authority in crediting the testimony of the cafeteria cashier who reported the thefts as opposed to claimant’s general denial of wrongdoing (see, Matter of Horton [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 1103). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 877, 684 N.Y.S.2d 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-huggins-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack