In re the Claim of Manley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Manley

10 A.D.3d 791, 781 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10960

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 791 (In re the Claim of Manley) 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 Manley, 10 A.D.3d 791, 781 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10960 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 18, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[792]*792Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which ruled that claimant, an assembly line repair mechanic, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was discharged from his employment after he failed to timely return from his break because he lost track of time while working on his car. Although claimant had no prior warnings regarding such conduct, the record establishes that he was a probationary employee and was aware of the time that he received for his breaks. Under the circumstances presented here, and inasmuch as claimant failed to comply with the employer’s workplace policy regarding breaks, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Soto [Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 693 [1999]; Matter of Tucek [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 667 [1998]; see also Matter of Yager [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 970 [2003]; Matter of Heath [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 944 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 April 18, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[792]*792Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which ruled that claimant, an assembly line repair mechanic, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was discharged from his employment after he failed to timely return from his break because he lost track of time while working on his car. Although claimant had no prior warnings regarding such conduct, the record establishes that he was a probationary employee and was aware of the time that he received for his breaks. Under the circumstances presented here, and inasmuch as claimant failed to comply with the employer’s workplace policy regarding breaks, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Soto [Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 693 [1999]; Matter of Tucek [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 667 [1998]; see also Matter of Yager [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 970 [2003]; Matter of Heath [Commissioner of Labor], 304 AD2d 944 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 791, 781 N.Y.S.2d 808, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-manley-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack