In re the Claim of Imondi

233 A.D.2d 736, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12097
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 21, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 736 (In re the Claim of Imondi) 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 Imondi, 233 A.D.2d 736, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 23, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

[737]*737Claimant was employed as a bank branch manager from June 1986 until April 1993, when she was discharged for failure to adhere to the employer’s policy stipulating that any teller "difference” exceeding $500 was to be reported to the employer’s audit and security department on the evening the difference was discovered. Claimant had become aware of a $6,000 difference on October 27,1992 but did not report it until February 9, 1993. Following her discharge, claimant was determined to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she had been terminated due to misconduct. We affirm.

Failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Frascino [Hudacs], 211 AD2d 842; Matter of Gallo [Hudacs], 206 AD2d 649, 650). Given the circumstances surrounding claimant’s termination, we find there to be substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Peters and Spain, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Berry
4 A.D.3d 664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Guerrerio
269 A.D.2d 659 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Hersh
268 A.D.2d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Hartman
258 A.D.2d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Vinci
253 A.D.2d 994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Stergas
250 A.D.2d 892 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Garcia
246 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Sands
243 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Rothman
242 A.D.2d 818 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Rooney
236 A.D.2d 775 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 A.D.2d 736, 650 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-imondi-nyappdiv-1996.