In re the Claim of Rios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rios

264 A.D.2d 874, 696 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9018

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

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 874 (In re the Claim of Rios) 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 Rios, 264 A.D.2d 874, 696 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 27, 1998, 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 that claimant was discharged from her employment as an assistant manager in a department store due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant believed that a ring she recently purchased from the employer’s store was becoming discolored. Without consulting a manager, claimant exchanged the allegedly defective ring by replacing it with an identical ring from the display case and repackaging the defective ring. Claimant was not concerned with whether a customer would purchase the defective merchandise. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant’s conduct constituted a disregard of the employer’s best interest (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743; Matter of Rohnke [Hu-dacs], 192 AD2d 812; Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 941).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, 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 April 27, 1998, 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 that claimant was discharged from her employment as an assistant manager in a department store due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant believed that a ring she recently purchased from the employer’s store was becoming discolored. Without consulting a manager, claimant exchanged the allegedly defective ring by replacing it with an identical ring from the display case and repackaging the defective ring. Claimant was not concerned with whether a customer would purchase the defective merchandise. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant’s conduct constituted a disregard of the employer’s best interest (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743; Matter of Rohnke [Hu-dacs], 192 AD2d 812; Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 AD2d 941).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 874, 696 N.Y.S.2d 533, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rios-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack