In re the Claim of Petrosov

284 A.D.2d 874, 727 N.Y.S.2d 528, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6848
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 28, 2001·Published·Cited by 11 cases

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] for 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

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).

284 A.D.2d 874 (In re the Claim of Petrosov) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Claim of King
107 A.D.3d 1219 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
In re the Claim of Schaffer
54 A.D.3d 1111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Smith
23 A.D.3d 973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Tobin
20 A.D.3d 839 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Olmstead
8 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Daoust
5 A.D.3d 828 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Burgees
307 A.D.2d 581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of McCarthy
298 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Alvarez
297 A.D.2d 859 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Morgan
291 A.D.2d 701 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)