Matter of Camacho (Commr. of Labor)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Camacho (Commr. of Labor)

137 A.D.3d 1403, 25 N.Y.S.3d 919

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

DecidedMarch 10, 2016

Docket521451

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 1403 (Matter of Camacho (Commr. of Labor)) 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

Matter of Camacho (Commr. of Labor), 137 A.D.3d 1403, 25 N.Y.S.3d 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 10, 2014, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

*1404 On November 19, 2013, claimant was discharged from her job as a dog walker for failing to walk the dogs for the amount of time that the employer’s clients had requested. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “Conduct that is detrimental to an employer’s interest and contrary to an established policy has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Portis [Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1195, 1195 [2014] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Cheeseboro [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1635, 1636 [2011]). “Whether a claimant’s actions rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Okano [Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP—Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2014]; see Matter of Pratt [Cellular Sales of N.Y. LLC—Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2015]). The hearing testimony and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that claimant walked dogs for less than the scheduled length of time, which claimant was aware violated the employer’s established policies governing client care and maintaining accurate time sheet records, and that such conduct was detrimental to the employer’s best interest.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, 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 10, 2014, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

*1404 On November 19, 2013, claimant was discharged from her job as a dog walker for failing to walk the dogs for the amount of time that the employer’s clients had requested. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “Conduct that is detrimental to an employer’s interest and contrary to an established policy has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Portis [Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1195, 1195 [2014] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Cheeseboro [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1635, 1636 [2011]). “Whether a claimant’s actions rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Okano [Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP—Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2014]; see Matter of Pratt [Cellular Sales of N.Y. LLC—Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2015]). The hearing testimony and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that claimant walked dogs for less than the scheduled length of time, which claimant was aware violated the employer’s established policies governing client care and maintaining accurate time sheet records, and that such conduct was detrimental to the employer’s best interest.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 1403, 25 N.Y.S.3d 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-camacho-commr-of-labor-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack