In re the Claim of Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jones

249 A.D.2d 864, 672 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4827

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

DecidedApril 30, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 864 (In re the Claim of Jones) 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 Jones, 249 A.D.2d 864, 672 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 29, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a clerk for an insurance company following her unauthorized absence from work. Claimant had previously been warned that her poor attendance was jeopardizing her job. Upon review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the [865]*865record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances. “It is well settled that unauthorized absences from work can constitute misconduct warranting disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” (Matter of Jensen [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 645 [citations omitted]; see, Matter of Luciano [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 797). Claimant’s exculpatory explanations merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Foster [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 628).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 April 29, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a clerk for an insurance company following her unauthorized absence from work. Claimant had previously been warned that her poor attendance was jeopardizing her job. Upon review of the record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence in the [865]*865record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances. “It is well settled that unauthorized absences from work can constitute misconduct warranting disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” (Matter of Jensen [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 645 [citations omitted]; see, Matter of Luciano [Sweeney], 243 AD2d 797). Claimant’s exculpatory explanations merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Foster [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 628).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 864, 672 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jones-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack