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 Steven L. UNTERMAN, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 17, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as a site surveyor whose duties included traveling to various locations to evaluate their potential as sites for multiple dwelling units. After he left work early without authorization on two consecutive afternoons to pick up his car at a repair shop, claimant was discharged. The record discloses that the employer had previously given claimant written notice that such conduct would not be tolerated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances prompting this appeal.
It is well settled that an employee's unauthorized absences from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Tordsen [Commissioner of Labor], 287 A.D.2d 935, 936, 731 N.Y.S.2d 678), especially in cases such as this where prior warnings have been given (see, Matter of Greenberg [Commissioner of Labor], 286 A.D.2d 794, 729 N.Y.S.2d 810; Matter of Williams [Commissioner of Labor], 274 A.D.2d 805, 806, 711 N.Y.S.2d 919). Here, it is undisputed that claimant was discharged because he left work early on two occasions after the employer had specifically denied his requests for permission to leave and after having been warned to refrain from such conduct. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Claimant's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.
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: April 04, 2002
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)