In re the Claim of Johns

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Johns

273 A.D.2d 532, 709 N.Y.S.2d 458, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6433

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

DecidedJune 8, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 532 (In re the Claim of Johns) 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 Johns, 273 A.D.2d 532, 709 N.Y.S.2d 458, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 25, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance [533]*533benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, employed as a part-time marketing and communications representative, was terminated after she failed to adhere to the employer’s policy regarding personal calls. The record reveals that claimant was warned on three occasions and despite these warnings continued making personal calls. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Spinelli [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 800). Claimant’s failure to adhere to the employer’s reasonable conditions could be found to rise to a level of disqualifying misconduct. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, 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 25, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance [533]*533benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, employed as a part-time marketing and communications representative, was terminated after she failed to adhere to the employer’s policy regarding personal calls. The record reveals that claimant was warned on three occasions and despite these warnings continued making personal calls. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Spinelli [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 800). Claimant’s failure to adhere to the employer’s reasonable conditions could be found to rise to a level of disqualifying misconduct. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 532, 709 N.Y.S.2d 458, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-johns-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack