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 Walid M. ELSAYED, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 12, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as the assistant director of housekeeping for the employer for approximately 20 months. He was discharged in August 2004 after the employer discovered that claimant had failed to identify his most recent employer on his employment application. Claimant's subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was ultimately denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the basis that he lost his employment as a result of disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. The employment application specifically provides that any misrepresentation made by the applicant would be grounds for the denial of employment or for discharge. Claimant admits that he omitted from the application information about his most recent employer, explaining that he did not think it was necessary to include the previous employer because he had worked there for only a short period of time. Notwithstanding claimant's proffered explanation, omitting information from an employment application is sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct and, thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision (see Matter of Dockal [Commissioner of Labor], 34 A.D.3d 1081, 1081, 824 N.Y.S.2d 777 [2006]; Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 18 A.D.3d 939, 794 N.Y.S.2d 161 [2005] ). Accordingly, the Board's decision will not be disturbed.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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: March 06, 2008
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)