In re the Claim of Turley

296 A.D.2d 763, 744 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7446
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 296 A.D.2d 763 (In re the Claim of Turley) 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 Turley, 296 A.D.2d 763, 744 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 29, 2001, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

As a result of his conviction of driving while intoxicated, claimant was incarcerated in January 2000 and unable to report to his job as a machinist until he was released in August 2000. While claimant was in jail, his employer granted him two leaves of absence, but refused to grant him extended leave beyond April 10, 2000. Consequently, claimant was terminated from his position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. After granting claimant’s request for reconsideration, the Board adhered to its prior decision.

[764]*764We affirm. This Court has held that a claimant’s unavailability for employment due to incarceration for an alcohol-related offense constitutes misconduct disqualifying the claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Matyjczuk [Delphi Automotive Sys. Div. of Gen. Motors Corp.—Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 847, 848; Matter of Opoka [Sweeney], 232 AD2d 718, 719). Inasmuch as it is undisputed that claimant was unable to report to work because of his incarceration, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Her cure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Mugglin 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

Related

Matter of Stack (City of Glens Falls--Commissioner of Labor)
2018 NY Slip Op 6840 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Coronel (Commr. of Labor)
140 A.D.3d 1408 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re the Claim of Richardson
30 A.D.3d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
In re the Claim of Chapman
10 A.D.3d 754 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
296 A.D.2d 763, 744 N.Y.S.2d 775, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-turley-nyappdiv-2002.