In re the Claim of Song

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Song

105 A.D.3d 1241, 962 N.Y.S.2d 830

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

DecidedApril 18, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 1241 (In re the Claim of Song) 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 Song, 105 A.D.3d 1241, 962 N.Y.S.2d 830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 17, 2011, 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 finding that claimant, a full-time registry and distribution clerk in the employer’s postal office, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct after four cash on delivery (hereinafter COD) items were not properly processed. A claimant’s disregard of an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest and continues despite prior warnings, may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Davila [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d 1043 [2004]; Matter of Parody [Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 868, 869 [2004]; Matter of Vinci [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 994 [1998]). Here, the record establishes that it was claimant’s responsibility as the primary registry clerk to, among other things, check the cabinet daily for COD items and process them in a timely fashion. Furthermore, claimant was the only one who possessed the key to the COD cabinet on the days he worked. Testimony also revealed that claimant had been counseled at a meeting in 2008, with a union representative present, that his job duties included the proper handling of COD items. Claimant’s testimony to the contrary presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Corchado [Commissioner of Labor], 77 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2010]; Matter of Marshall [Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 775, 776 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001]).

[1242]*1242Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.E, Spain, McCarthy 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 November 17, 2011, 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 finding that claimant, a full-time registry and distribution clerk in the employer’s postal office, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct after four cash on delivery (hereinafter COD) items were not properly processed. A claimant’s disregard of an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest and continues despite prior warnings, may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Davila [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d 1043 [2004]; Matter of Parody [Commissioner of Labor], 7 AD3d 868, 869 [2004]; Matter of Vinci [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 994 [1998]). Here, the record establishes that it was claimant’s responsibility as the primary registry clerk to, among other things, check the cabinet daily for COD items and process them in a timely fashion. Furthermore, claimant was the only one who possessed the key to the COD cabinet on the days he worked. Testimony also revealed that claimant had been counseled at a meeting in 2008, with a union representative present, that his job duties included the proper handling of COD items. Claimant’s testimony to the contrary presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Corchado [Commissioner of Labor], 77 AD3d 1009, 1010 [2010]; Matter of Marshall [Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 775, 776 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 602 [2001]).

[1242]*1242Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.E, Spain, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 1241, 962 N.Y.S.2d 830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-song-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack