In re the Claim of Schreiber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Schreiber

27 A.D.3d 871, 810 N.Y.S.2d 554

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 871 (In re the Claim of Schreiber) 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 Schreiber, 27 A.D.3d 871, 810 N.Y.S.2d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 18, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for a school district as a teacher’s aide and bus monitor. Part of her duties included accompanying a disabled student on the bus between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and [872]*87210:00 a.m. When such student was not on the bus, claimant was to report to the assistant superintendent’s office for reassignment. The student was not on the bus on February 2 or 3, 2004, but claimant did not obtain a reassignment. Rather, on February 2, 2004, she waited outside the assistant superintendent’s office for 20 minutes and then went to a first grade classroom and, on February 3, 2004, she went to the faculty lounge where she had a snack and then proceeded to the computer room where she checked e-mail and gathered information on discrimination. Claimant was terminated as a result and thereafter applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her claim on the basis that she was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. The failure to comply with an employer’s reasonable request may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Bowen [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 642 [2005]; Matter of Pearlstein [Engstrand—Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 947, 947 [2005]). It is undisputed that claimant did not report to the office as required on the dates in question and, on at least one of those dates, engaged in activities of a personal nature. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello 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 November 18, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for a school district as a teacher’s aide and bus monitor. Part of her duties included accompanying a disabled student on the bus between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and [872]*87210:00 a.m. When such student was not on the bus, claimant was to report to the assistant superintendent’s office for reassignment. The student was not on the bus on February 2 or 3, 2004, but claimant did not obtain a reassignment. Rather, on February 2, 2004, she waited outside the assistant superintendent’s office for 20 minutes and then went to a first grade classroom and, on February 3, 2004, she went to the faculty lounge where she had a snack and then proceeded to the computer room where she checked e-mail and gathered information on discrimination. Claimant was terminated as a result and thereafter applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her claim on the basis that she was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. The failure to comply with an employer’s reasonable request may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Bowen [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 642 [2005]; Matter of Pearlstein [Engstrand—Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 947, 947 [2005]). It is undisputed that claimant did not report to the office as required on the dates in question and, on at least one of those dates, engaged in activities of a personal nature. In view of this, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 871, 810 N.Y.S.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-schreiber-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack