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 Stephen J. ORLANDO, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 1, 2000, which, inter alia, 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 mail clerk for violating the employer's policy prohibiting the discarding of undeliverable or returned mail. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals and we affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. It is well settled that failing to comply with the employer's established policies and procedures may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Roman [Commissioner of Labor], 277 A.D.2d 589, 715 N.Y.S.2d 498; Matter of Singh [Commissioner of Labor], 273 A.D.2d 664, 711 N.Y.S.2d 350). Here, the record reveals that claimant was not only informed of the employer's policy prohibiting the disposal of returned mail, but was aware that violation of the policy could lead to his discharge. To the extent that claimant testified that he only discarded mail after having been instructed to do so, this presented a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Thompson [Commissioner of Labor], 275 A.D.2d 854, 713 N.Y.S.2d 229; Matter of Singh [Commissioner of Labor], supra ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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: May 10, 2001
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)