Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Sonia CORDOVA, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 2, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed August 4, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.
Claimant was discharged from her position as program director of a senior citizen center when, in violation of the employer's established procedures, she purchased furniture without soliciting bids from vendors or obtaining the requisite written approval. Claimant was on probation at the time as the result of various complaints concerning her work performance. Given claimant's knowing disregard of the employer's purchasing policy and prior conduct, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Celeiro [Dentsply Equip.-Commissioner of Labor], 254 A.D.2d 599, 678 N.Y.S.2d 815; Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 A.D.2d 932, 933, 666 N.Y.S.2d 844).
Furthermore, we reject claimant's assertion that she was denied due process because the manager of the department which provided outside funding for the senior citizen center, whose authorization was needed for the furniture purchase, failed to respond to a subpoena. We find no reason to disturb the Board's finding that the manager's testimony was unnecessary given claimant's admission that she purchased the furniture in error and failed to follow the established purchasing procedures (see, Matter of O'Connor [Howell-Hartnett], 165 A.D.2d 946, 948, 561 N.Y.S.2d 318; cf., Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor], 256 A.D.2d 773, 774, 681 N.Y.S.2d 636).
ORDERED that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 09, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)