In re the Claim of Nyack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Nyack

304 A.D.2d 1002, 759 N.Y.S.2d 215, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4135

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 1002 (In re the Claim of Nyack) 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 Nyack, 304 A.D.2d 1002, 759 N.Y.S.2d 215, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 17, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service until her discharge for repeated lateness, which persisted despite numerous written warnings that continued tardiness could result in her termination. Chronic lateness, following adequate warnings, may disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits (see Matter of Chapman [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 857 [2000]; Matter of Manjarrez [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 872, 873 [1996]). Claimant does not deny that she was chronically late, but asserts that her difficulties were usually caused by her lengthy commute and the fact that her children’s day care provider would not accept her children sufficiently early in the morning to enable her to arrive at work on time. However, the record shows no indication that she attempted to secure alternate child care arrangements that would have accommodated her need to be on time, thereby protecting her employment (see Matter of Huntt [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 760, 761 [1999]; Matter of Ducat [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 796 [1996]). Based on the circumstances presented [1003]*1003here, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, 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, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service until her discharge for repeated lateness, which persisted despite numerous written warnings that continued tardiness could result in her termination. Chronic lateness, following adequate warnings, may disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits (see Matter of Chapman [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 857 [2000]; Matter of Manjarrez [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 872, 873 [1996]). Claimant does not deny that she was chronically late, but asserts that her difficulties were usually caused by her lengthy commute and the fact that her children’s day care provider would not accept her children sufficiently early in the morning to enable her to arrive at work on time. However, the record shows no indication that she attempted to secure alternate child care arrangements that would have accommodated her need to be on time, thereby protecting her employment (see Matter of Huntt [Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 760, 761 [1999]; Matter of Ducat [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 796 [1996]). Based on the circumstances presented [1003]*1003here, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 1002, 759 N.Y.S.2d 215, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-nyack-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack