In re the Claim of Rosa
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Wightman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- In re the Claim of Marcus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Claim of McFarlane (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)
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 February 23, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
As part of his duties as a field service representative, claimant was responsible for making visits to participating medical providers at their offices. The employer conducted an audit of office visit documentation prepared by claimant and discovered certain inaccuracies as well as fraudulent signatures. As a result, claimant was terminated from his position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated for misconduct, and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Falsification of business records has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Marione [Commissioner of Labor], 25 AD3d 1055 [2006]; Matter of Garcia [Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 956 [2005]). Here, the employer’s investigation revealed that claimant represented that he visited certain practitioners at their offices when, in fact, he did not and that he signed the names of the practitioners to the office visit forms. Notably, claimant admitted to signing the names of the practitioners because he wanted credit for the visits. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Therefore, we find no reason to disturb its decision.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.