In re the Claim of Jimenez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jimenez

301 A.D.2d 716, 752 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 28

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 716 (In re the Claim of Jimenez) 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 Jimenez, 301 A.D.2d 716, 752 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 28 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 17, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a tailor and co-manager of a clothing store after he failed to abide by the employer’s absentee policy of calling in prior to the beginning of his shift. The employer’s witness testified that claimant was informed at monthly meetings that the employer must be notified of absences at least a half hour prior to the beginning of the shift. Here, claimant failed to call in sick to work until several hours after his shift began. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemploy[717]*717ment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged under disqualifying circumstances (see Matter of Garcia [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 786; Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters 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

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 17, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a tailor and co-manager of a clothing store after he failed to abide by the employer’s absentee policy of calling in prior to the beginning of his shift. The employer’s witness testified that claimant was informed at monthly meetings that the employer must be notified of absences at least a half hour prior to the beginning of the shift. Here, claimant failed to call in sick to work until several hours after his shift began. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemploy[717]*717ment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged under disqualifying circumstances (see Matter of Garcia [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 786; Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 716, 752 N.Y.S.2d 910, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jimenez-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack