In re the Claim of Messer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Messer

1 A.D.2d 840, 767 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1 A.D.3d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12614

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

DecidedNovember 26, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 840 (In re the Claim of Messer) 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 Messer, 1 A.D.2d 840, 767 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1 A.D.3d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 19, 2002, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a manager at a bank due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant requested that her savings account be closed and the money transferred to her checking ac[841]*841count. The following month, claimant learned that the account had not been closed as she requested and charges had been assessed against the account. Although claimant was aware that employees were prohibited from performing transactions on their own accounts, claimant failed to obtain approval from another manager or a supervisor before asking a subordinate to close the account. In order to close the account, it was necessary to reverse the assessed charges. Given claimant’s managerial position and her failure to comply with a known policy of the employer regarding account transactions, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Guerrerio [Commissioner of Labor], 269 AD2d 659 [2000]; Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878 [1999]). Claimant’s contention that she was unaware that approval from a supervisor was required presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 303 AD2d 815 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 19, 2002, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a manager at a bank due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant requested that her savings account be closed and the money transferred to her checking ac[841]*841count. The following month, claimant learned that the account had not been closed as she requested and charges had been assessed against the account. Although claimant was aware that employees were prohibited from performing transactions on their own accounts, claimant failed to obtain approval from another manager or a supervisor before asking a subordinate to close the account. In order to close the account, it was necessary to reverse the assessed charges. Given claimant’s managerial position and her failure to comply with a known policy of the employer regarding account transactions, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Guerrerio [Commissioner of Labor], 269 AD2d 659 [2000]; Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Sav. Bank—Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 878 [1999]). Claimant’s contention that she was unaware that approval from a supervisor was required presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 303 AD2d 815 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 840, 767 N.Y.S.2d 296, 1 A.D.3d 840, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-messer-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack