In re the Claim of Pulcrano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Pulcrano

235 A.D.2d 899, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 533

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 899 (In re the Claim of Pulcrano) 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 Pulcrano, 235 A.D.2d 899, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 2, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a sheet metal fabricator until he was discharged for excessive lateness. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. Excessive lateness after oral and written warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Herring [Hudacs], 199 AD2d 795; Matter of Wade [Hudacs], 198 AD2d 699). In the instant matter, claimant admitted that he frequently arrived late for work because he overslept, that he continued to be late after repeated warnings and that his habitual lateness culminated in his discharge. This leads to the conclusion that the Board’s decision finding that claimant lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and it is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey 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 January 2, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a sheet metal fabricator until he was discharged for excessive lateness. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. Excessive lateness after oral and written warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Herring [Hudacs], 199 AD2d 795; Matter of Wade [Hudacs], 198 AD2d 699). In the instant matter, claimant admitted that he frequently arrived late for work because he overslept, that he continued to be late after repeated warnings and that his habitual lateness culminated in his discharge. This leads to the conclusion that the Board’s decision finding that claimant lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and it is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 899, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-pulcrano-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack