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 Carmen J. DAVILA, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 30, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
On May 22, 2000, claimant was hired as the manager of a retail clothing store. On October 16, 2003, after she failed to deposit receipts from the store in the bank over a four-day period, she was terminated from her position. Claimant had been previously counseled about her performance, including the necessity of complying with the employer's policy regarding making bank deposits on a daily basis, and was warned that her discharge could result if her performance did not improve. Following her discharge, she applied for unemployment insurance benefits. Her application was eventually denied by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. She now appeals.
We affirm. An employee's failure to comply with an employer's reasonable and established policies and procedures concerning the handling of cash and related matters may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Larsen [Commissioner of Labor], 288 A.D.2d 544, 544, 731 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2001]; Matter of Rooney [Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 775, 654 N.Y.S.2d 51 [1997] ), especially if such conduct continues despite prior warnings (see Matter of Rivera [Commissioner of Labor], 262 A.D.2d 696, 690 N.Y.S.2d 780 [1999], lv. dismissed 94 N.Y.2d 939, 708 N.Y.S.2d 354, 729 N.E.2d 1153 [2000] ). Here, claimant admitted that although she repeatedly instructed an assistant manager to make the bank deposits over the course of several days, she permitted the deposits to accumulate until they were discovered by the employer's loss prevention manager during an audit. Claimant's assertion that she did not know that the store policy required bank deposits to be made on a daily basis presented an issue of credibility for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Messer [Key Bank Natl. Assn.-Commissioner of Labor], 1 A.D.3d 840, 841, 767 N.Y.S.2d 296 [2003]; Matter of Naraine [Sweeney], 245 A.D.2d 932, 933, 666 N.Y.S.2d 844 [1997] ).
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 30, 2004
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)