Matter of Smith (Commr. of Labor)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Smith (Commr. of Labor)

138 A.D.3d 1341, 31 N.Y.S.3d 245

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

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket521824

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 1341 (Matter of Smith (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 Smith (Commr. of Labor), 138 A.D.3d 1341, 31 N.Y.S.3d 245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 6, 2015, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemploy *1342 ment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a technical support representative, was discharged from his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. “It is well settled that failure to abide by a known policy of the employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Wise [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 795, 795 [2005] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Intini [Commissioner of Labor], 123 AD3d 1347, 1349 [2014]; Matter of Brauneisen [GEICO Ins. Co .—Commis sioner of Labor], 72 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2010]). Claimant, who worked from home, admitted that he was aware of the employer’s policy that he was not to use the employer-issued computer for personal reasons and that he was not to access the Internet for non-business purposes while speaking on the telephone with a customer. He further admitted to accessing a pornographic website on the employer’s computer while on a call with a customer. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant was not entitled to benefits. Further, contrary to claimant’s contention, the question as to whether or not his conduct constituted “gross misconduct” for the purposes of continued health coverage after termination pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (29 USC §§ 1162 [2] [A] [1]; 1163 [2]) is not binding on the Board in determining disqualifying misconduct for unemployment insurance benefit purposes (see generally Matter of Local 54 United Paperworkers Intl. Union [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 922, 923 [2003]; Matter of Scott v Manzi Taxi & Transp. Co., 179 AD2d 949, 951 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 752 [1992]).

Lahtinen, J.R, Garry, Rose and Clark, 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 January 6, 2015, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemploy *1342 ment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, a technical support representative, was discharged from his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. “It is well settled that failure to abide by a known policy of the employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Wise [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 795, 795 [2005] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Intini [Commissioner of Labor], 123 AD3d 1347, 1349 [2014]; Matter of Brauneisen [GEICO Ins. Co .—Commis sioner of Labor], 72 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2010]). Claimant, who worked from home, admitted that he was aware of the employer’s policy that he was not to use the employer-issued computer for personal reasons and that he was not to access the Internet for non-business purposes while speaking on the telephone with a customer. He further admitted to accessing a pornographic website on the employer’s computer while on a call with a customer. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant was not entitled to benefits. Further, contrary to claimant’s contention, the question as to whether or not his conduct constituted “gross misconduct” for the purposes of continued health coverage after termination pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (29 USC §§ 1162 [2] [A] [1]; 1163 [2]) is not binding on the Board in determining disqualifying misconduct for unemployment insurance benefit purposes (see generally Matter of Local 54 United Paperworkers Intl. Union [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 922, 923 [2003]; Matter of Scott v Manzi Taxi & Transp. Co., 179 AD2d 949, 951 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 752 [1992]).

Lahtinen, J.R, Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 1341, 31 N.Y.S.3d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-smith-commr-of-labor-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack