In re the Claim of Iglesias

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Iglesias

297 A.D.2d 849, 746 N.Y.2d 853, 746 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8299

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

DecidedSeptember 12, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 849 (In re the Claim of Iglesias) 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 Iglesias, 297 A.D.2d 849, 746 N.Y.2d 853, 746 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was employed as a security guard until she was discharged for excessive absences. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently found claimant to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she lost her job due to misconduct. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision in the form of the testimony given by the employer’s operations manager, together with supporting documentation showing that claimant had been absent over 20 days in the year 2000 despite repeated warnings, both oral and written, that continued absences would result in her dismissal.

It is well settled that excessive absenteeism following writ[850]*850ten warnings may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Luciano [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 797, 798; Matter of Heeb [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 772). Claimant’s testimony, in which she disputed some of the statements made by the employer’s witness, presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Everette [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 811). The remaining contentions raised herein have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, 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

Claimant was employed as a security guard until she was discharged for excessive absences. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently found claimant to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she lost her job due to misconduct. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision in the form of the testimony given by the employer’s operations manager, together with supporting documentation showing that claimant had been absent over 20 days in the year 2000 despite repeated warnings, both oral and written, that continued absences would result in her dismissal.

It is well settled that excessive absenteeism following writ[850]*850ten warnings may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Luciano [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 797, 798; Matter of Heeb [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 772). Claimant’s testimony, in which she disputed some of the statements made by the employer’s witness, presented issues of credibility for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Everette [Sweeney], 247 AD2d 811). The remaining contentions raised herein have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 849, 746 N.Y.2d 853, 746 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-iglesias-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack