Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001

In re the Claim of Jones

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

285 A.D.2d 801; 728 N.Y.S.2d 272; 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7409

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Harris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
In re the Claim of Kridel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Adams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Adams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Durand (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
In re the Claim of Martinez (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 31, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to' misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which ruled that claimant was discharged from his employment as a truck driver due to disqualifying misconduct. Despite being aware of the employer’s rule that driving on the Thruway was prohibited under any circumstances, claimant admitted violating this policy in order to deliver a late shipment on time. Knowingly violating an employer’s established policies and procedures has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, e.g., Matter of Ahmend [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 561; Matter of Egelberg [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 684). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision, notwithstanding claimant’s exculpatory explanation for the rule violation.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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