IN RE: the Claim of TINA DEPRETA

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of TINA DEPRETA, Appellant.  COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.


Decided: June 23, 2016

Before:  Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ. Christopher A. Spence, Olean, for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Dawn A. Foshee of counsel), for respondent.


Calendar Date:  May 3, 2016

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 3, 2015, 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, a pharmacy technician, lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct.  The record establishes that claimant, who had ordered two prescription bottles through the employer, left the employer's premises with one of the prescription bottles without first paying for it.  Although claimant subsequently paid for the prescription, it does not negate the fact that she was aware of the employer's policy that employees were required to pay for all products before leaving with them.  As the violation of a known policy of the employer, which has a detrimental effect on the employer's interest, has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Briskie [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 786 [2012];  Matter of Cheek [Commissioner of Labor], 89 AD3d 1313, 1313–1314 [2011] ), the Board's decision will not be disturbed.  We have reviewed claimant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard