In re the Claim of Maldonado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Maldonado

118 A.D.3d 1246, 988 N.Y.S.2d 298

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

DecidedJune 26, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 1246 (In re the Claim of Maldonado) 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 Maldonado, 118 A.D.3d 1246, 988 N.Y.S.2d 298 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

[1247]*1247Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 2013, 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 finding that claimant lost his employment as an assistant superintendent for a property management company as a result of disqualifying misconduct. Violation of an employer’s known policies, as well as unauthorized absence from work, have been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Garrett [Commissioner of Labor], 67 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2009]; see also Matter of Almanzar [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1418, 1418 [2009]). Here, the record reflects that, in contravention of the employer’s established and known policies, claimant took unauthorized breaks and left the work premises for over an hour without notifying the employer, notwithstanding the fact that he had received prior warnings that such conduct could lead to termination of his employment. Any inconsistencies in the testimony created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Almanzar [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d at 1418).

Peters, EJ., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, 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

[1247]*1247Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 2013, 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 finding that claimant lost his employment as an assistant superintendent for a property management company as a result of disqualifying misconduct. Violation of an employer’s known policies, as well as unauthorized absence from work, have been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Garrett [Commissioner of Labor], 67 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2009]; see also Matter of Almanzar [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d 1418, 1418 [2009]). Here, the record reflects that, in contravention of the employer’s established and known policies, claimant took unauthorized breaks and left the work premises for over an hour without notifying the employer, notwithstanding the fact that he had received prior warnings that such conduct could lead to termination of his employment. Any inconsistencies in the testimony created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Almanzar [Commissioner of Labor], 65 AD3d at 1418).

Peters, EJ., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 1246, 988 N.Y.S.2d 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-maldonado-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack