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 Andrea J. NEWKIRK, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 31, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a word processor for the New York City Transit Authority. She was paid on an hourly basis and was required to keep a record of the hours she worked. Her employment was terminated after it was discovered that she had falsified her time records. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.
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 Du Bois [Mellon Found.-Commissioner of Labor], 282 A.D.2d 858, 723 N.Y.S.2d 539 [2001] ). Here, claimant admitted that she left work on April 16, 2003 at 6:30 P.M., but represented on her time sheet that she stayed until 9:00 P.M. Although she maintained that the error was an innocent mistake, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Chang [Wolgin-Commissioner of Labor], 7 A.D.3d 908, 908, 776 N.Y.S.2d 653 [2004]; Matter of Kelly [Commissioner of Labor], 288 A.D.2d 539, 731 N.Y.S.2d 811 [2001] ). Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board's decision, we decline to disturb it.
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: February 24, 2005
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)