In re the Claim of Maher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Maher

178 A.D.2d 739, 577 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16048

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 739 (In re the Claim of Maher) 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 Maher, 178 A.D.2d 739, 577 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment [740]*740Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 18, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant lost his job of six years due to excessive tardiness. Prior to claimant’s discharge, his employer followed company policy with respect to warning him and ultimately docking his pay because of his tardiness. Although claimant admitted that he knew that his job was in jeopardy, he made no attempt to change his daily routine to avoid being late. Under the circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct (see, Matter of Grosso [Levine], 52 AD2d 964; Matter of De Scetto [Levine], 51 AD2d 1100).

Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, 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 [740]*740Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 18, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant lost his job of six years due to excessive tardiness. Prior to claimant’s discharge, his employer followed company policy with respect to warning him and ultimately docking his pay because of his tardiness. Although claimant admitted that he knew that his job was in jeopardy, he made no attempt to change his daily routine to avoid being late. Under the circumstances, there is substantial evidence to support the decision disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct (see, Matter of Grosso [Levine], 52 AD2d 964; Matter of De Scetto [Levine], 51 AD2d 1100).

Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 739, 577 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-maher-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack