In re the Claim of Piles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Piles

286 A.D.2d 793, 729 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8467

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 793 (In re the Claim of Piles) 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 Piles, 286 A.D.2d 793, 729 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 31, 1999, 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.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was discharged from her employment as a home care attendant due to disqualifying misconduct. Despite a previous warning from the employer, claimant left a client unattended without informing the employer as required. Although claimant had informed the client that she would be absent, it was claimant’s responsibility to inform the employer of her absence so that a replacement could be found. Inasmuch as claimant disregarded the employer’s best interest by violating a known rule of the employer (see, Matter of Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 274 AD2d 805, 805-806; Matter of Miller [Uihlein Mercy Ctr.— Sweeney], 234 AD2d 832, lv denied 90 NY2d 803), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 31, 1999, 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.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was discharged from her employment as a home care attendant due to disqualifying misconduct. Despite a previous warning from the employer, claimant left a client unattended without informing the employer as required. Although claimant had informed the client that she would be absent, it was claimant’s responsibility to inform the employer of her absence so that a replacement could be found. Inasmuch as claimant disregarded the employer’s best interest by violating a known rule of the employer (see, Matter of Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 274 AD2d 805, 805-806; Matter of Miller [Uihlein Mercy Ctr.— Sweeney], 234 AD2d 832, lv denied 90 NY2d 803), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 793, 729 N.Y.S.2d 809, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-piles-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack