In re the Claim of Petrosov

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Petrosov

284 A.D.2d 874, 727 N.Y.S.2d 528, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848

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

DecidedJune 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 874 (In re the Claim of Petrosov) 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 Petrosov, 284 A.D.2d 874, 727 N.Y.S.2d 528, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 8, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a cashier [875]*875for allegedly stealing money from the cash register. Following an initial determination by respondent that claimant was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, the employer objected, asserting that claimant had been discharged under disqualifying circumstances. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and this appeal by claimant ensued.

We affirm. Notwithstanding claimant’s assertion that the Board’s decision should be reversed inasmuch as the employer subsequently withdrew his objection to her eligibility to receive benefits, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. It is well settled that “[a]n employee’s apparent dishonesty or failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Huggins [Samaritan Med. Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 877, 878; see, Matter of Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 903, 905). To the extent that claimant’s version of the events surrounding her termination differed from that of the employer, this conflict presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 722, 723).

Her cure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, 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 8, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a cashier [875]*875for allegedly stealing money from the cash register. Following an initial determination by respondent that claimant was eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits, the employer objected, asserting that claimant had been discharged under disqualifying circumstances. Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and this appeal by claimant ensued.

We affirm. Notwithstanding claimant’s assertion that the Board’s decision should be reversed inasmuch as the employer subsequently withdrew his objection to her eligibility to receive benefits, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. It is well settled that “[a]n employee’s apparent dishonesty or failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Huggins [Samaritan Med. Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 257 AD2d 877, 878; see, Matter of Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 903, 905). To the extent that claimant’s version of the events surrounding her termination differed from that of the employer, this conflict presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 722, 723).

Her cure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 874, 727 N.Y.S.2d 528, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-petrosov-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack