In re the Claim of Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Jones

285 A.D.2d 801, 728 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7409

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

DecidedJuly 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 801 (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, 285 A.D.2d 801, 728 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 31, 2000, 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 which ruled that claimant was discharged from his employment as a truck driver due to disqualifying misconduct. Despite being aware of the employer’s rule that driving on the Thruway was prohibited under any circumstances, claimant admitted violating this policy in order to deliver a late shipment on time. Knowingly violating an employer’s established policies and procedures has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, e.g., Matter of Ahmend [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 561; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision, notwithstanding claimant’s exculpatory explanation for the rule violation.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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 March 31, 2000, 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 which ruled that claimant was discharged from his employment as a truck driver due to disqualifying misconduct. Despite being aware of the employer’s rule that driving on the Thruway was prohibited under any circumstances, claimant admitted violating this policy in order to deliver a late shipment on time. Knowingly violating an employer’s established policies and procedures has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, e.g., Matter of Ahmend [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 561; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision, notwithstanding claimant’s exculpatory explanation for the rule violation.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 801, 728 N.Y.S.2d 272, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-jones-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack