In re the Claim of Rizzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rizzo

307 A.D.2d 573, 762 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8198

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

DecidedJuly 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 573 (In re the Claim of Rizzo) 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 Rizzo, 307 A.D.2d 573, 762 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 4, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a cashier at a drug store after she violated the employer’s written policies against processing the sales transaction of a family member (her mother) and giving an employee discount to a family member other than a spouse or dependents. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was properly denied unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she had lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant appeals.

Violation of an employer’s reasonable policies may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Letcher [Wal-Mart Stores — Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 710 [2000]), especially in cases where, as here, the violation is potentially detrimental to the employer’s interests (see Matter of Hawkins [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 558, 559 [1998]). As claimant was aware of the employer’s policies and does not contest her violation of them, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision finding claimant guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Block [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 870 [1998]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 4, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from her employment as a cashier at a drug store after she violated the employer’s written policies against processing the sales transaction of a family member (her mother) and giving an employee discount to a family member other than a spouse or dependents. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was properly denied unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she had lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant appeals.

Violation of an employer’s reasonable policies may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Letcher [Wal-Mart Stores — Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 710 [2000]), especially in cases where, as here, the violation is potentially detrimental to the employer’s interests (see Matter of Hawkins [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 558, 559 [1998]). As claimant was aware of the employer’s policies and does not contest her violation of them, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision finding claimant guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Block [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 870 [1998]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 573, 762 N.Y.S.2d 306, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rizzo-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack