In re the Claim of Limarzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Limarzi

244 A.D.2d 750, 664 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11737

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 750 (In re the Claim of Limarzi) 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 Limarzi, 244 A.D.2d 750, 664 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 6, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a computer operator at a hospital until he was discharged for using the employer’s computer system and stationery to write personal correspondence during working hours after repeated admonitions that such conduct was in violation of workplace rules. We affirm the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s rules or policy after repeated warnings to cease has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of O’Shea [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736). The record contains substantial evidence in support of the determination that claimant was guilty of such misconduct, and claimant’s assertions to the contrary merely raised questions of credibility that were within the province of the Board to resolve (see generally, Matter of Eggers [Sweeney], 215 AD2d 859).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White 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 March 6, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a computer operator at a hospital until he was discharged for using the employer’s computer system and stationery to write personal correspondence during working hours after repeated admonitions that such conduct was in violation of workplace rules. We affirm the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee’s knowing violation of an employer’s rules or policy after repeated warnings to cease has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of O’Shea [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736). The record contains substantial evidence in support of the determination that claimant was guilty of such misconduct, and claimant’s assertions to the contrary merely raised questions of credibility that were within the province of the Board to resolve (see generally, Matter of Eggers [Sweeney], 215 AD2d 859).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 750, 664 N.Y.S.2d 669, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-limarzi-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack