In re the Claim of Rothman

242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 11, 1997·Published·Cited by 22 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 23, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a salesperson when his employer discovered that he had violated the company policy forbidding employees from taking home company materials, such as catalogs and price lists. Claimant acknowledged that he was aware of this policy but that he nonetheless took company materials home and later destroyed some of them because he felt that his work efforts were not sufficiently appreciated. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling finding claimant guilty of disqualifying misconduct. Failing to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures and acting in a manner contrary to the employer’s best interests constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Imondi [North Fork Bank—Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736; see, Matter of Naymark [Tanagraphics—Sweeney], 232 AD2d 804). The decision of the Board is, accordingly, affirmed.

[819] Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, 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

In re the Claim of Rothman, 242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

242 A.D.2d 818 (In re the Claim of Rothman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re the Claim of Kaissar
3 A.D.3d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Arbatosky
302 A.D.2d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Smith
296 A.D.2d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Claim of Thompson
275 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Campbell
271 A.D.2d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Murray
268 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Rivera
262 A.D.2d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Richards
261 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Johnson
257 A.D.2d 823 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Claim of Creary
254 A.D.2d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Ahmed
254 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Boudreau
253 A.D.2d 939 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Williams
252 A.D.2d 649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Gibson
250 A.D.2d 906 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Colombo
249 A.D.2d 620 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Naraine
245 A.D.2d 932 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Blaine
244 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Lubin
244 A.D.2d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Egelberg
244 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)