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 Dominick FRANCO, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 10, 2003, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant, an accounting supervisor at a home health care agency, was terminated from his employment for violating the employer's attendance policy prohibiting employees from having three or more sick leave absences within a three-month period. In his application for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant represented that he was laid off due to lack of work. Although claimant initially was awarded benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board later disqualified him from receiving benefits on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. In addition, upon finding that claimant made willful false statements to obtain benefits, the Board charged him with a recoverable overpayment of $2,025 and reduced his right to receive future benefits by eight days. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. The violation of an employer's attendance policy has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct, particularly where an employee has received prior warnings (see e.g. Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 299 A.D.2d 794, 751 N.Y.S.2d 621 [2002] ). Here, claimant admittedly violated the employer's attendance policy after being warned that any further violation of the employer's policies would result in his discharge. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. Furthermore, inasmuch as claimant indicated on his application that he was unemployed due to a lack of work, substantial evidence also supports the Board's finding that he made willful false statements to obtain benefits (see Matter of Graham [Commissioner of Labor], 305 A.D.2d 926, 927, 758 N.Y.S.2d 869 [2003]; Matter of Walker [Sweeney], 232 A.D.2d 715, 647 N.Y.S.2d 879 [1996] ).
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)