In re the Claim Tensley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim Tensley

232 A.D.2d 711, 648 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10075

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 711 (In re the Claim Tensley) 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 Tensley, 232 A.D.2d 711, 648 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 14, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment because he failed to call his employer during an unanticipated four-day absence from work. The Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant testified that family matters required him to be out of town and to miss four days of work. He acknowledged that he was familiar with the employer’s policy requiring employees to call in to report absences and that, although he did request someone to make the call for him, the information was never relayed to the employer. Under the circumstances presented, claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the rule requiring employees to report absences to the employer. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of misconduct (see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, 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 November 14, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was terminated from his employment because he failed to call his employer during an unanticipated four-day absence from work. The Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Based upon our review of the record, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Claimant testified that family matters required him to be out of town and to miss four days of work. He acknowledged that he was familiar with the employer’s policy requiring employees to call in to report absences and that, although he did request someone to make the call for him, the information was never relayed to the employer. Under the circumstances presented, claimant has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his failure to comply with the rule requiring employees to report absences to the employer. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of misconduct (see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 AD2d 972).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 711, 648 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-tensley-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack