In re the Claim of Goldman
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Warren (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Matter of Cunningham (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- In re the Claim of Dzugas-Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of David (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of Novak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of Kridel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
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 14, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as an office manager at a hospital. After a coworker reported that claimant had smoked in the office they shared, thereby violating the employer’s policy prohibiting smoking on the premises, the employer conducted an investigation. Based upon the evidence adduced, the employer planned to terminate claimant’s employment. Claimant resigned from her position in lieu of being discharged and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. “It is well settled that failure to abide by a known policy of the employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct”
Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.