In re the Claim of Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ruiz

48 A.D.3d 865, 851 N.Y.S.2d 290

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 865 (In re the Claim of Ruiz) 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 Ruiz, 48 A.D.3d 865, 851 N.Y.S.2d 290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 2, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment as a result of disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was absent from work from December 12, 2005 until December 28, 2005. Although the employer [866]*866required its employees to report their absences on a daily basis, claimant admitted that he called only every few days. Inasmuch as a claimant’s failure to abide by an employer’s call-in policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Montgomery [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2006]; Matter of Serafín [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 980, 980 [2005]; Matter of Sundin [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 831, 832 [2005]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Kane, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, 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 February 2, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment as a result of disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was absent from work from December 12, 2005 until December 28, 2005. Although the employer [866]*866required its employees to report their absences on a daily basis, claimant admitted that he called only every few days. Inasmuch as a claimant’s failure to abide by an employer’s call-in policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Montgomery [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2006]; Matter of Serafín [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 980, 980 [2005]; Matter of Sundin [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 831, 832 [2005]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Kane, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 865, 851 N.Y.S.2d 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ruiz-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack