In re the Claim of Montgomery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Montgomery

32 A.D.3d 1068, 820 N.Y.S.2d 859

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 1068 (In re the Claim of Montgomery) 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 Montgomery, 32 A.D.3d 1068, 820 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 9, 2005, which, upon reconsideration, inter alia, adhered to its prior decision ruling 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 denying claimant’s request for unemployment insurance benefits because he was discharged from his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was absent from work on March 9, 10 and 11, 2005 due to his incarceration on criminal charges [1069]*1069and, contrary to a known policy, failed to contact the employer regarding his absence. Although claimant testified that he asked his sister to call the employer and explain his absence, no call was placed to the employer until after claimant was discharged from his employment. Inasmuch as failure to report an absence from work has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Greer [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 944, 945 [1999]; Matter of Boone [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 907 [1999]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 December 9, 2005, which, upon reconsideration, inter alia, adhered to its prior decision ruling 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 denying claimant’s request for unemployment insurance benefits because he was discharged from his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was absent from work on March 9, 10 and 11, 2005 due to his incarceration on criminal charges [1069]*1069and, contrary to a known policy, failed to contact the employer regarding his absence. Although claimant testified that he asked his sister to call the employer and explain his absence, no call was placed to the employer until after claimant was discharged from his employment. Inasmuch as failure to report an absence from work has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision (see Matter of Greer [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 944, 945 [1999]; Matter of Boone [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 907 [1999]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 1068, 820 N.Y.S.2d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-montgomery-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack