In re the Claim of Schnabel
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Armellino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re the Claim of Davis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re the Claim of Orzelek (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of King (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re the Claim of Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- In re the Claim of Garcia-Primer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
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 November 20, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was discharged from her employment as an account specialist for an office supply business due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant had been previously suspended for three days due to excessive tardiness and absences when, on her first scheduled return date, she called in sick due to a migraine. On her next scheduled day, she arrived half an hour late. As a result, claimant was suspended again until further notice. The following day and without authorization to return, claimant reported to work. Thereafter, claimant eventually complied with her supervisor’s repeated orders to leave the work place.
It is well settled that continued absenteeism and tardiness despite previous warnings can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Chapman [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 857 [2000]; Matter of Hahn [Hudacs], 206 AD2d 582 [1994]). Although claimant testified that she was absent due to a migraine and late due to her child’s asthma, the medical
Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.