In re the Claim of Williams

274 A.D.2d 805, 711 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 20, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 805 (In re the Claim of Williams) 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 Williams, 274 A.D.2d 805, 711 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 28, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a claims adjuster for the employer, was terminated for leaving work early without authorization in violation of the employer’s attendance policy. In our view, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits due to her misconduct (see, Matter of Sadowski [Star Corrugated Box Co. — Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 752). It is well [806]*806established that unauthorized absences from one’s employment after having received repeated warnings, as did claimant here, may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, id.; Matter of Conforti [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 663). Additionally, the record supports the ruling that claimant was properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Estevez [Connoisseur Finishers — Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 732). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Graffeo, 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

In re the Claim of Porter
38 A.D.3d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Graham
305 A.D.2d 926 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re the Claim of Unterman
293 A.D.2d 801 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Tordsen
287 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Piles
286 A.D.2d 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Greenberg
286 A.D.2d 794 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
In re the Claim of Survilla
283 A.D.2d 696 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 A.D.2d 805, 711 N.Y.S.2d 919, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-williams-nyappdiv-2000.