In re the Claim of Rothman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rothman

242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

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

Pincite

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]*819Mercure, 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

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]*819Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rothman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack