In re the Claim of Hughes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Hughes

283 A.D.2d 753, 725 N.Y.S.2d 118, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4844

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

DecidedMay 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 753 (In re the Claim of Hughes) 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 Hughes, 283 A.D.2d 753, 725 N.Y.S.2d 118, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 6, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a custodian under disqualifying circumstances (see, Matter of Pianoforte [Commissioner of Labor], 271 AD2d 796; Matter of Rossi [Commissioner of Labor], 231 AD2d 769). The record establishes that on numerous occasions claimant failed to call in to work to report his absences as required, notwithstanding repeated prior warnings as well as a suspension for the same type of conduct. Under these circumstances, the Board’s decision that claimant’s failure to abide by the employer’s absentee call-in policy amounted to disqualifying misconduct will not be disturbed.

Spain, J. P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose 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

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 6, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a custodian under disqualifying circumstances (see, Matter of Pianoforte [Commissioner of Labor], 271 AD2d 796; Matter of Rossi [Commissioner of Labor], 231 AD2d 769). The record establishes that on numerous occasions claimant failed to call in to work to report his absences as required, notwithstanding repeated prior warnings as well as a suspension for the same type of conduct. Under these circumstances, the Board’s decision that claimant’s failure to abide by the employer’s absentee call-in policy amounted to disqualifying misconduct will not be disturbed.

Spain, J. P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 753, 725 N.Y.S.2d 118, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-hughes-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack