In re the Claim of Vacchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Vacchio

104 A.D.3d 989, 960 N.Y.S.2d 271

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 104 A.D.3d 989 (In re the Claim of Vacchio) 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 Vacchio, 104 A.D.3d 989, 960 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 4, 2011, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant was terminated from his position as a sanitation truck driver after he refused to sign a time sheet despite the employer’s directive to do so. While claimant was admittedly aware of his obligation to sign the time sheet, he testified that he refused to do so on that occasion because his employer had improperly altered the times he had worked. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was free to credit claimant’s testimony, and substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that his actions did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Korosi [Star Gas Prods. — Hartnett], 179 AD2d 976, 976-977 [1992]; cf. Matter of Lambert [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 948, 948 [2006]). We have examined and rejected the employer’s remaining contention (see Matter of Guerin [Roberts], 88 AD2d 1018, 1019 [1982], lv denied 57 NY2d 604 [1982]).

[990]*990Peters, PJ., Rose, Spain and Garry, 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 October 4, 2011, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant was terminated from his position as a sanitation truck driver after he refused to sign a time sheet despite the employer’s directive to do so. While claimant was admittedly aware of his obligation to sign the time sheet, he testified that he refused to do so on that occasion because his employer had improperly altered the times he had worked. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was free to credit claimant’s testimony, and substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s determination that his actions did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Korosi [Star Gas Prods. — Hartnett], 179 AD2d 976, 976-977 [1992]; cf. Matter of Lambert [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 948, 948 [2006]). We have examined and rejected the employer’s remaining contention (see Matter of Guerin [Roberts], 88 AD2d 1018, 1019 [1982], lv denied 57 NY2d 604 [1982]).

[990]*990Peters, PJ., Rose, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.3d 989, 960 N.Y.S.2d 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-vacchio-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack