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 Jennifer D. MARIONE, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 19, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a reinsurance supervisor from September 2001 until July 2004 and was responsible for maintaining the time records of employees within her department. She was terminated after her employer discovered an inaccuracy on her time sheet which indicated that she was present at work during a five-day period when she was in fact on vacation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct. This appeal ensued.
We affirm. It is well settled that an employee's falsification of time records may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Thomas [Commissioner of Labor], 12 A.D.3d 810, 810-811, 784 N.Y.S.2d 250 [2004]; Matter of Cole [Cornell Coop. Ext. of Erie County-Commissioner of Labor], 2 A.D.3d 1242, 1243, 770 N.Y.S.2d 450 [2003] ). In the present case, it is undisputed that claimant provided the employer with a time sheet which falsely represented that she was present at work during a time when she was on vacation. Claimant's assertion that the mistake was a mere clerical error she made without any intention of deceiving the employer presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Newkirk [Commissioner of Labor], 15 A.D.3d 827, 790 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2005] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: January 26, 2006
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)