In re the Claim of Whaley

38 A.D.3d 1084, 831 N.Y.S.2d 775
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 1084 (In re the Claim of Whaley) 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 Whaley, 38 A.D.3d 1084, 831 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 3, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a payroll specialist at a hospital. She was terminated from her position after her employer discovered that she inaccurately entered the date of an employee’s pay increase which resulted in an overpayment of wages. The employee concerned was claimant’s fiancé. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemploy[1085]*1085ment insurance benefits on the ground that her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. An employee’s apparent dishonesty has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 973, 974 [2005]; Matter of Susswein [American Socy. of Composers, Authors & Pubis.— Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 1091, 1091 [2005]). Here, claimant’s supervisor stated that she believed that claimant intentionally falsified payroll records in order to benefit her fiancé. Although claimant maintained that the inaccuracy was an innocent mistake, this presented an issue of credibility for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Keeler [Commissioner of Labor], 15 AD3d 718, 719 [2005]). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, we decline to disturb it.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Spain, 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 McFarlane
51 A.D.3d 1317 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In re the Claim of Andreani
44 A.D.3d 1210 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Cincu
43 A.D.3d 528 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Congdon
41 A.D.3d 1013 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 1084, 831 N.Y.S.2d 775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-whaley-nyappdiv-2007.