In re the Claim of Ruland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Ruland

109 A.D.3d 1068, 971 N.Y.S.2d 592

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 1068 (In re the Claim of Ruland) 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 Ruland, 109 A.D.3d 1068, 971 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 12, 2012, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a security officer working the night shift in a hospital emergency department, was discharged for sleeping on the job. Despite having been previously notified that such behavior was prohibited and could result in termination, claimant conceded that he dozed off while on duty. Inasmuch as the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly found from this evidence that claimant acted in a manner “detrimental to the employer’s interest or in violation of a reasonable work condition” (Matter of De Grego [Levine], 39 NY2d 180, 184 [1976]; accord Matter of Clum [All-Lifts, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2008]), substantial evidence supports its determination that he lost his employment through disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Fairley [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 781, 781 [2004]; Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 931, 931 [1998]).

Rose, J.E, McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., 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 April 12, 2012, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a security officer working the night shift in a hospital emergency department, was discharged for sleeping on the job. Despite having been previously notified that such behavior was prohibited and could result in termination, claimant conceded that he dozed off while on duty. Inasmuch as the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly found from this evidence that claimant acted in a manner “detrimental to the employer’s interest or in violation of a reasonable work condition” (Matter of De Grego [Levine], 39 NY2d 180, 184 [1976]; accord Matter of Clum [All-Lifts, Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2008]), substantial evidence supports its determination that he lost his employment through disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Fairley [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 781, 781 [2004]; Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 931, 931 [1998]).

Rose, J.E, McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 1068, 971 N.Y.S.2d 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ruland-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack