Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004

In re the Claim of Glowinski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 4, 2004

5 A.D.3d 839; 772 N.Y.S.2d 639; 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2232

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Garrett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
In re the Claim of Ramirez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re the Claim of Kessler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
In re the Claim of Goulbourne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
In re the Claim of Iskhakov (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
In re the Claim of Kurtz (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 March 28, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment for excessive absenteeism and failure to call in her absences. Prior to her termination, claimant advised the employer of her desire to spend time with her sick mother and inquired about taking a leave of absence. Although not approved for such leave, claimant failed to report to work for several days and failed to comply with the employer’s call-in policy which prohibited more than two unreported absences a year.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. An unauthorized absence from work (see Matter of Jacque [Commissioner of Labor], 270 *840AD2d 541 [2000]; Matter of Burns [Commissioner of Labor], 259 AD2d 797 [1999]; Matter of Polax [New York City Dept. of Correction—Sweeney], 220 AD2d 919 [1995]) or a failure to abide by an employer’s call-in policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Jimenez [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 716, 716-717 [2003]; Matter of Lyubinskaya [Daffy’s, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 288 AD2d 551, 552 [2001]). Claimant’s remaining contention, that she was automatically entitled to a determination in her favor because the employer failed to appear at the hearing, has been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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.