In re the Claim of Myftiu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Myftiu

45 A.D.3d 1148, 846 N.Y.S.2d 386

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1148 (In re the Claim of Myftiu) 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 Myftiu, 45 A.D.3d 1148, 846 N.Y.S.2d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 17, 2006, 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.

Claimant worked as a bookkeeper for the employer for a little over two months. She was terminated from her position after she repeatedly violated the employer’s policy against using computers to conduct personal business during working hours despite prior warnings. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and it adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. “It is well settled that a claimant’s performance of personal business during working hours, in violation of the employer’s policies, may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Bach [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 736, 737 [2003] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Rivera [Schapiro’s Formal Shop—Commissioner of Labor], 294 AD2d 635 [2002]). Here, the employer’s representative stated that claimant was observed on numerous occasions using the Internet during working hours to peruse Web sites, conduct shopping and complete homework, and that she had been repeatedly warned to discontinue this behavior. Although claimant admitted that she did homework on one occasion, she denied otherwise using the Internet or receiving warnings that it was against the employer’s policy. The conflicts in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Wells [Commissioner of Labor], 29 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2006]). Insofar [1149]*1149as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we decline to disturb it.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, 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 October 17, 2006, 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.

Claimant worked as a bookkeeper for the employer for a little over two months. She was terminated from her position after she repeatedly violated the employer’s policy against using computers to conduct personal business during working hours despite prior warnings. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and it adhered to this decision upon reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. “It is well settled that a claimant’s performance of personal business during working hours, in violation of the employer’s policies, may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Bach [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 736, 737 [2003] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Rivera [Schapiro’s Formal Shop—Commissioner of Labor], 294 AD2d 635 [2002]). Here, the employer’s representative stated that claimant was observed on numerous occasions using the Internet during working hours to peruse Web sites, conduct shopping and complete homework, and that she had been repeatedly warned to discontinue this behavior. Although claimant admitted that she did homework on one occasion, she denied otherwise using the Internet or receiving warnings that it was against the employer’s policy. The conflicts in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Wells [Commissioner of Labor], 29 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2006]). Insofar [1149]*1149as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we decline to disturb it.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 1148, 846 N.Y.S.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-myftiu-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack