Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

In re the Claim of Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 20, 2000

274 A.D.2d 805; 711 N.Y.S.2d 919; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8110

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Porter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re the Claim of Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Unterman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Claim of Survilla (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Piles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Greenberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re Tordsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)

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 April 28, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a claims adjuster for the employer, was terminated for leaving work early without authorization in violation of the employer’s attendance policy. In our view, substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits due to her misconduct (see, Matter of Sadowski [Star Corrugated Box Co. — Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 752). It is well *806established that unauthorized absences from one’s employment after having received repeated warnings, as did claimant here, may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, id.; Matter of Conforti [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 663). Additionally, the record supports the ruling that claimant was properly charged with a recoverable overpayment of benefits (see, Matter of Estevez [Connoisseur Finishers — Commissioner of Labor], 272 AD2d 732). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Graffeo, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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