In re the Claim of Manjarrez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Manjarrez

224 A.D.2d 872, 638 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1499

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 872 (In re the Claim of Manjarrez) 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 Manjarrez, 224 A.D.2d 872, 638 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 22, 1993, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a bank teller because she was late to work on numerous occasions despite being warned that her lateness was unacceptable. She claims that because her lateness was attributable to events beyond her control, the Board’s decision disqualifying her from [873]*873benefits upon the ground that she was terminated for misconduct is not supported by substantial evidence. Inasmuch as claimant conceded that she was late in getting to work 10 to 11 times, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. It was claimant’s responsibility to heed her employer’s warnings and the excuses she offered for her tardiness do not negate her misconduct. Continued lateness, after adequate warnings, constitutes misconduct (see, Matter of Brown [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 425). Moreover, we find no merit to claimant’s assertion that her lateness was merely a pretext for her termination.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, 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 September 22, 1993, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a bank teller because she was late to work on numerous occasions despite being warned that her lateness was unacceptable. She claims that because her lateness was attributable to events beyond her control, the Board’s decision disqualifying her from [873]*873benefits upon the ground that she was terminated for misconduct is not supported by substantial evidence. Inasmuch as claimant conceded that she was late in getting to work 10 to 11 times, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. It was claimant’s responsibility to heed her employer’s warnings and the excuses she offered for her tardiness do not negate her misconduct. Continued lateness, after adequate warnings, constitutes misconduct (see, Matter of Brown [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 425). Moreover, we find no merit to claimant’s assertion that her lateness was merely a pretext for her termination.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 872, 638 N.Y.S.2d 252, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-manjarrez-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack