In re the Claim of Luciano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Luciano

243 A.D.2d 797, 665 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9687

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 797 (In re the Claim of Luciano) 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 Luciano, 243 A.D.2d 797, 665 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 7, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a polisher in a factory that manufactured stainless steel fittings. Her employment was [798]*798terminated due to unexcused absences and tardiness after repeated warnings that such conduct would result in her dismissal. Substantial evidence supports this ruling. An employee’s unauthorized absences from work have been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cassaro [Sweeney], 221 AD2d 790; Matter of Ponce [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 756, 757) as has excessive lateness after oral and written warnings (see, Matter of Herring [Hudacs], 199 AD2d 795).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 January 7, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a polisher in a factory that manufactured stainless steel fittings. Her employment was [798]*798terminated due to unexcused absences and tardiness after repeated warnings that such conduct would result in her dismissal. Substantial evidence supports this ruling. An employee’s unauthorized absences from work have been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Cassaro [Sweeney], 221 AD2d 790; Matter of Ponce [Hudacs], 209 AD2d 756, 757) as has excessive lateness after oral and written warnings (see, Matter of Herring [Hudacs], 199 AD2d 795).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 797, 665 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-luciano-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack