Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Derian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 15, 1997

239 A.D.2d 722; 657 N.Y.S.2d 262; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5260

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Petrosov (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Roman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Gordon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Hartman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Hartman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Halt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
In re the Claim of Egelberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 13, 1995, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a store manager until he was discharged from his employment for violating a company policy requiring that the store’s safe be kept securely locked at all times. Claimant’s failure to abide by this rule resulted in the theft of $1,467 from the store’s safe. Following his discharge, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, stating on his application that he had lost his employment due to corporate downsizing. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal *723Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct and that he had made willful false statements to obtain benefits.

We affirm. Failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rooney [Sweeney], 236 AD2d 775; Matter of Kobrin [Sweeney], 216 AD2d 625, 626). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant lost his employment due to such disqualifying misconduct and that he made willful false statements to obtain them. To the extent that claimant provided testimony to the contrary, this merely presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Crew III, J. P., White, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.