Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Naraine

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

245 A.D.2d 932; 666 N.Y.S.2d 844; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13589

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Davila (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Larsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Gewirtz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Cordova (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
In re the Claim of Gibson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Hendrickson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Oliver (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Ahmed (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 February 24, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a customer service representative for a retail store until she was terminated for violating the employer’s cash-handling procedure. Claimant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the employer’s cash-handling policy and procedure, which stated that an employee’s failure *933to comply therewith would result in disciplinary action, including termination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant lost her job under disqualifying circumstances. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Failure to comply with an employer’s established policies or procedures has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 818; Matter of O’Shea [Sweeney], 233 AD2d 736). Claimant’s exculpatory explanation for the incident which caused her discharge raised a credibility issue which the Board was free to resolve against her (see, Matter of Perkov [Sweeney], 231 AD2d 780; Matter of Johnson [Ross], 81 AD2d 681, 682).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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