In re the Claim of Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Johnson

273 A.D.2d 588, 708 N.Y.S.2d 756, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6668

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 588 (In re the Claim of Johnson) 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 Johnson, 273 A.D.2d 588, 708 N.Y.S.2d 756, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 5, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, employed as a service agent for a mail delivery company, was discharged from his employment after violating his employer’s absence policy. The record reveals that charges were brought against claimant and that he had been advised to come in for a meeting to discuss this with his supervisor. Claimant failed to contact his supervisor as requested and thereafter failed to attend a scheduled meeting. At the hearing, claimant stated that he knew about the scheduled meeting, but chose not to contact the employer, despite being aware that the employee handbook required him to notify his employer regarding his absences. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Greer [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 944; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684).

Cardona, P. J., Spain, Graffeo, Mugglin 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 February 5, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, employed as a service agent for a mail delivery company, was discharged from his employment after violating his employer’s absence policy. The record reveals that charges were brought against claimant and that he had been advised to come in for a meeting to discuss this with his supervisor. Claimant failed to contact his supervisor as requested and thereafter failed to attend a scheduled meeting. At the hearing, claimant stated that he knew about the scheduled meeting, but chose not to contact the employer, despite being aware that the employee handbook required him to notify his employer regarding his absences. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Greer [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 944; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684).

Cardona, P. J., Spain, Graffeo, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 588, 708 N.Y.S.2d 756, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-johnson-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack