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 Maureen BENTON, Appellant. U.S. Homecare Corporation, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as a live-in aide by the employer, a home health care agency. Her job entailed caring for clients of the agency on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis. Claimant was originally discharged on August 8, 1996, after the employer learned that she had incurred approximately $995 in charges on two of her clients' telephone accounts. While claimant had her clients' permission to use their telephones and had paid the outstanding charges, the employer discharged claimant on the ground that her excessive conduct violated the agency's rule prohibiting employees from abusing clients' property. Claimant was subsequently reinstated and resumed care for her client until September 7, 1996. After the employer learned that claimant had incurred an additional $500 in telephone charges between August 8, 1996 and September 7, 1996, claimant was terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had engaged in disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. An employee who knowingly violates the employer's rules, despite prior admonitions, will be found to have engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Limarzi [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 750, 664 N.Y.S.2d 669; Matter of Spinelli [Sweeney], 231 A.D.2d 800, 647 N.Y.S.2d 126). Inasmuch as the record contains substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, it will not be disturbed.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: April 09, 1998
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)