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 Michael W. KAZAKA, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 29, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a sorter for United Parcel Service for approximately 14 years, until he was fired in November 2005 due to a poor attendance record. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his ensuing application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that his employment had been terminated because of misconduct. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. An employee's failure, in the face of repeated prior warnings, to comply with an employer's tardiness policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Morgan [New York City Dept. of Probation-Commissioner of Labor], 42 A.D.3d 846, 839 N.Y.S.2d 860 [2007] ). Here, the record reveals that, despite the fact that claimant had already been warned several times regarding problems with him being late, he failed to report to work on time on his last date of employment. As for claimant's offering of an exculpatory explanation for his conduct, a credibility issue was created for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Chrysler [Commissioner of Labor], 9 A.D.3d 728, 728-729, 779 N.Y.S.2d 832 [2004] ). Given the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant was discharged from his employment for misconduct (see Matter of Valenta [Commissioner of Labor], 38 A.D.3d 1070, 1071, 833 N.Y.S.2d 263 [2007] ).
To the extent not specifically addressed herein, claimant's remaining assertions have been considered and are rejected.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 13, 2007
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)