Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

In re the Claim of Du Bois

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 12, 2001

282 A.D.2d 858; 723 N.Y.S.2d 539; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Fulcher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Claim of Newkirk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re the Claim of Thomas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Sonzogni (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Richardson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Noel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Kelly (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 March 20, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

After claimant’s employment was terminated because she falsified time records when she was late for work, her claim for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that she lost her employment under disqualifying conditions. An employee’s falsification of time records can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Granek [Commissioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 680) and there is evidence in the record, including the testimony of the employer’s representative and claimant’s admissions, which provides substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant falsified her time sheet. Claimant’s exculpatory explanation for her conduct created a question of credibility for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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