Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Mallard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 24, 1997

245 A.D.2d 932; 666 N.Y.S.2d 858; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13606

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Bolasny (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Guilarte (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Guy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Blickley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Fourby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Hanson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

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 January 17, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was a cashier for the employer who provided food service to a major stock brokerage firm. On the day in question, claimant’s sales receipts indicated a shortage which she attributed to a sale she had made to an employee of the brokerage firm who she claimed had authorized that the purchase be charged to his charge account with the employer. When the employer learned that this employee had not authorized any charge to his account, claimant was terminated for misappropriation of company assets. Conduct which reflects adversely on an employer’s integrity (see generally, Matter of Sinker [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 878, affd 89 NY2d 485) or is potentially detrimental to an employer’s interests (see, Matter of Zizzo [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 418) has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant lost her job due to disqualifying misconduct, we affirm.

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

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.