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 Madeline C. MOROFF, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 12, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a general office clerk due to misconduct. The record establishes that due to claimant's limited knowledge of computers, her job duties included no computer work. Nevertheless, claimant herself admits that, without asking the employer, she used the employer's computer for personal reasons after work. While using the computer to print information, the printer jammed and, as a result, claimant turned the printer off and left the employer a note regarding the problem. When the employer tried to use the computer later that night in an attempt to fix the problem, the hard drive crashed and much of the business information and e-mails were lost. Inasmuch as claimant engaged in conduct which was detrimental to the employer's best interest (see Matter of Tedesco [Trans World Airlines-Hudacs], 183 A.D.2d 1082, 583 N.Y.S.2d 678 [1992]; Matter of Belai [Hartnett], 168 A.D.2d 773, 564 N.Y.S.2d 220 [1990] ), we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision. We have reviewed claimant's remaining contentions, including that she was denied a fair hearing and she was improperly denied the right to present a witness, and find them to be without merit.
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: December 09, 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)