In re the Claim of Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rivera

262 A.D.2d 696, 690 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191

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

DecidedJune 3, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 696 (In re the Claim of Rivera) 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 Rivera, 262 A.D.2d 696, 690 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 14, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a crew leader for a sandwich shop until he was terminated for failing to comply with the employer’s cash-handling policies, despite repeated warnings. Upon review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. It is well settled that failing to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and acting in a manner that is detrimental to the employer’s interest can be construed as disqualifying misconduct, especially if, as in this case, the conduct persists despite repeated warnings (see, Matter of Depena [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 611, 611-612; Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, 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 September 14, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a crew leader for a sandwich shop until he was terminated for failing to comply with the employer’s cash-handling policies, despite repeated warnings. Upon review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. It is well settled that failing to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and acting in a manner that is detrimental to the employer’s interest can be construed as disqualifying misconduct, especially if, as in this case, the conduct persists despite repeated warnings (see, Matter of Depena [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 611, 611-612; Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818). Claimant’s remaining arguments have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 696, 690 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rivera-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack