In re the Claim of Punter
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Roy (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Matter of Moniz (Commr. of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- In re the Claim of Reid (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- In re the Claim of Ali (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- In re the Claim of Rios (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Banks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Ladner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Douglas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Barresi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Matter of Sinker (Sweeney) (N.Y. 1997)
- In re the Claim of Bruno (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- In re the Claim of Collazo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- In re the Claim of Rohnke (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- In re the Claim of O'Grady (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- In re the Claim of Delisa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- In re the Claim of Costanza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- In re the Claim of Sapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Claimant, a credit and collection clerk for a department store, sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident. Upon receipt of a report form from her insurance company requesting wage information from her employer, she completed the form and signed her manager’s name thereto without authorization.
The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board had the right to disqualify claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment through misconduct in connection therewith. The intentional and unauthorized subscription by an employee of an instrument in respect to the employment relation by use of an employer’s name, even though accomplished without intent to harm and not resulting in actual harm, constitutes misconduct within subdivision 3 of section 593 of the Labor Law. At least, the board was entitled to so conclude. Such conduct evinces a willful disregard of standards of behavior which employers have the right to expect of their employees and, in this instance, bears materially on claimant’s fitness and integrity to serve in the capacity of a credit and collection clerk (see Matter of Rosedietcher [Levine], 33 NY2d 377, 380-381; see, also, Unemployment Compensation—Misconduct, Ann., 146 ALR 243; cf. Matter of Van Such [Levine], 50 AD2d 956).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Jones, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judges Gabrielli and Wachtler dissent and vote to reverse on the dissenting memorandum by Mr. Justice A. Franklin Mahoney at the Appellate Division (54 AD2d 526).
*745 Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.