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 James E. SHEEHAN, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 20, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from his employment as a conservation assistant for a museum for failing to follow the employer's established policies with respect to the transportation of expensive artwork to and from museum donors. Claimant had previously been verbally warned regarding lapses in the delivery procedure. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits upon the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Inasmuch as claimant acted contrary to the employer's established policy and such conduct was potentially detrimental to the employer's best interest, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Hartman [Roslyn Savs. Bank-Commissioner of Labor], 257 A.D.2d 878, 684 N.Y.S.2d 42; Matter of Guibert [Commissioner of Labor], 254 A.D.2d 661, 679 N.Y.S.2d 452). Although the Board reversed a decision of the Administrative Law Judge in claimant's favor, it is well established that the Board is free to resolve credibility issues differently from the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Lugo [Milford Mgt.-Commissioner of Labor], 251 A.D.2d 742, 673 N.Y.S.2d 772, appeal dismissed 92 N.Y.2d 939, 680 N.Y.S.2d 903, 703 N.E.2d 761, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 819, 685 N.Y.S.2d 421, 708 N.E.2d 178). Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.
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: January 20, 2000
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)