In re the Claim of Syed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Syed

61 A.D.3d 1197, 877 N.Y.S.2d 492

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

DecidedApril 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 1197 (In re the Claim of Syed) 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 Syed, 61 A.D.3d 1197, 877 N.Y.S.2d 492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 19, 2007, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant, a sales associate, was discharged from his employment due to misconduct. “It is well established that an employee’s unauthorized absence from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Tahat [Commissioner of Labor], 58 AD3d 921, 921 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Chiou [Commissioner of Labor], 22 AD3d 1024 [2005]). Here, the record reveals that claimant was absent from work for approximately five weeks, even though his employer had approved only a two-week vacation leave. To the extent that claimant disputes the employer’s version of the underlying events and contends, among other things, that he was absent due to a previously authorized medical leave, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Ramirez [Commissioner of Labor], 49 AD3d 953, 954 [2008]).

[1198]*1198Mercure, J.E, Spain, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, 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

Kane, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 19, 2007, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding that claimant, a sales associate, was discharged from his employment due to misconduct. “It is well established that an employee’s unauthorized absence from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Tahat [Commissioner of Labor], 58 AD3d 921, 921 [2009] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Chiou [Commissioner of Labor], 22 AD3d 1024 [2005]). Here, the record reveals that claimant was absent from work for approximately five weeks, even though his employer had approved only a two-week vacation leave. To the extent that claimant disputes the employer’s version of the underlying events and contends, among other things, that he was absent due to a previously authorized medical leave, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Ramirez [Commissioner of Labor], 49 AD3d 953, 954 [2008]).

[1198]*1198Mercure, J.E, Spain, Kane, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 1197, 877 N.Y.S.2d 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-syed-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack