In re the Claim of Weiner

47 A.D.3d 1040, 850 N.Y.S.2d 658
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 47 A.D.3d 1040 (In re the Claim of Weiner) 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 Weiner, 47 A.D.3d 1040, 850 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 25, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a sales associate at a department store and purchased a returned fur coat at a significant discount to its listed price without the requisite management authorization. Following an investigation of this incident, claimant was terminated from her position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. An employee’s violation of an employer’s reasonable policy, which is detrimental to the employer’s financial interest, has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Washington [Commissioner of Labor], 309 AD2d 1135 [2003]; Matter of Rizzo [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 573 [2003]). The employer’s policy concerning employee purchases was designed to protect it against monetary loss, and claimant’s disregard of this policy was clearly adverse to its interest. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision and claimant’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Oddo [Lee Pubis.—Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2006]).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

In re the Claim of Briskie
98 A.D.3d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
In re the Claim of Cheek
89 A.D.3d 1313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Sutton
84 A.D.3d 1621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Corchado
77 A.D.3d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Claim of Cruz
54 A.D.3d 1082 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 A.D.3d 1040, 850 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-weiner-nyappdiv-2008.