In re the Claim of Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Roman

277 A.D.2d 589, 715 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11109

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

DecidedNovember 2, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 589 (In re the Claim of Roman) 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 Roman, 277 A.D.2d 589, 715 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 2, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment as a general manager for a food service when, after receiving a written warning, he again left an office safe in the “day lock” position in violation of the employer’s policy. Given claimant’s demonstrated failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and the circumstances surrounding his termination, we find there to be substantial evidence supporting the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct (see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 722).

Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his claim of abuse of discretion by the Administrative Law Judge in reopening the matter following the employer’s initial default (see, Matter of Scott [New York City Dept. of Personnel — Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 777), have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Rose 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 August 2, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment as a general manager for a food service when, after receiving a written warning, he again left an office safe in the “day lock” position in violation of the employer’s policy. Given claimant’s demonstrated failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and the circumstances surrounding his termination, we find there to be substantial evidence supporting the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct (see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 722).

Claimant’s remaining contentions, including his claim of abuse of discretion by the Administrative Law Judge in reopening the matter following the employer’s initial default (see, Matter of Scott [New York City Dept. of Personnel — Commissioner of Labor], 265 AD2d 777), have been examined and found to be similarly unpersuasive.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 589, 715 N.Y.S.2d 498, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-roman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack