In re the Claim of Jerome

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jerome

275 A.D.2d 835, 713 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9214

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 835 (In re the Claim of Jerome) 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 Jerome, 275 A.D.2d 835, 713 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was discharged from his employment as a security guard after he was an hour late for work on two consecutive days despite having previously been warned about such conduct. The record establishes that claimant could not access his post because of his tardiness and therefore the factory went unguarded. It is well settled that continued lateness after oral and written warnings can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Wayne [Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 768, 769). Although claimant disagreed with the employer’s version of the events leading to his discharge, this raised a credibility issue which the Board was free to resolve in favor of the employer (see, id.). Furthermore, upon review of the record we reject claimant’s contention that he was denied the right to a fair hearing. The Board’s decision that claimant was discharged due to disqualifying misconduct is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Graffeo 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 May 19, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was discharged from his employment as a security guard after he was an hour late for work on two consecutive days despite having previously been warned about such conduct. The record establishes that claimant could not access his post because of his tardiness and therefore the factory went unguarded. It is well settled that continued lateness after oral and written warnings can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Wayne [Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 768, 769). Although claimant disagreed with the employer’s version of the events leading to his discharge, this raised a credibility issue which the Board was free to resolve in favor of the employer (see, id.). Furthermore, upon review of the record we reject claimant’s contention that he was denied the right to a fair hearing. The Board’s decision that claimant was discharged due to disqualifying misconduct is, accordingly, affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 835, 713 N.Y.S.2d 105, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jerome-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack