In Re the Claim of Punter

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Claim of Punter

372 N.E.2d 576, 43 N.Y.2d 743, 401 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2536

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 372 N.E.2d 576 (In Re the Claim of Punter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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 Punter, 372 N.E.2d 576, 43 N.Y.2d 743, 401 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2536 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Claimant, a credit and collection clerk for a department store, sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident. Upon receipt of a report form from her insurance company requesting wage information from her employer, she completed the form and signed her manager’s name thereto without authorization.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board had the right to disqualify claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment through misconduct in connection therewith. The intentional and unauthorized subscription by an employee of an instrument in respect to the employment relation by use of an employer’s name, even though accomplished without intent to harm and not resulting in actual harm, constitutes misconduct within subdivision 3 of section 593 of the Labor Law. At least, the board was entitled to so conclude. Such conduct evinces a willful disregard of standards of behavior which employers have the right to expect of their employees and, in this instance, bears materially on claimant’s fitness and integrity to serve in the capacity of a credit and collection clerk (see Matter of Rosedietcher [Levine], 33 NY2d 377, 380-381; see, also, Unemployment Compensation—Misconduct, Ann., 146 ALR 243; cf. Matter of Van Such [Levine], 50 AD2d 956).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judges Gabrielli and Wachtler dissent and vote to reverse on the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division (54 AD2d 526).

*745 Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Claimant, a credit and collection clerk for a department store, sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident. Upon receipt of a report form from her insurance company requesting wage information from her employer, she completed the form and signed her manager’s name thereto without authorization.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board had the right to disqualify claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment through misconduct in connection therewith. The intentional and unauthorized subscription by an employee of an instrument in respect to the employment relation by use of an employer’s name, even though accomplished without intent to harm and not resulting in actual harm, constitutes misconduct within subdivision 3 of section 593 of the Labor Law. At least, the board was entitled to so conclude. Such conduct evinces a willful disregard of standards of behavior which employers have the right to expect of their employees and, in this instance, bears materially on claimant’s fitness and integrity to serve in the capacity of a credit and collection clerk (see Matter of Rosedietcher [Levine], 33 NY2d 377, 380-381; see, also, Unemployment Compensation—Misconduct, Ann., 146 ALR 243; cf. Matter of Van Such [Levine], 50 AD2d 956).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judges Gabrielli and Wachtler dissent and vote to reverse on the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division (54 AD2d 526).

*745 Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

372 N.E.2d 576, 43 N.Y.2d 743, 401 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-punter-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack