In re the Claim of Richardson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Richardson

301 A.D.2d 1004, 753 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 685

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 1004 (In re the Claim of Richardson) 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 Richardson, 301 A.D.2d 1004, 753 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 10, 2002, which ruled 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 financial planner and analyst due to disqualifying misconduct after it was discovered that she falsified her time sheet by indicating that she worked 40-hour weeks. It is well settled that inaccurately documented time records can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Du Bois [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 858; Matter of Trahan [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 664). Claimant’s exculpatory explanations for admittedly failing to appropriately record her time and leaving without approval created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see id.).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters 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 May 10, 2002, which ruled 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 financial planner and analyst due to disqualifying misconduct after it was discovered that she falsified her time sheet by indicating that she worked 40-hour weeks. It is well settled that inaccurately documented time records can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Du Bois [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 858; Matter of Trahan [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 664). Claimant’s exculpatory explanations for admittedly failing to appropriately record her time and leaving without approval created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see id.).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 1004, 753 N.Y.S.2d 409, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-richardson-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack