You are here: / / Misconduct Serious Enough to Warrant Firing Did Not Disqualify Employee...

Misconduct Serious Enough to Warrant Firing Did Not Disqualify Employee from Receiving Unemployment Benefits

The Third Department affirmed the appeal board’s determination that, although the employee’s misconduct was serious enough to warrant firing, the employee was still entitled to unemployment insurance:

“Not every discharge for cause rises to the level of misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” … . Here, the Board, in its capacity as the “final arbiter of factual matters involving questions of credibility” …, found it significant that, while claimant did not lock out the machine properly, this was the first time that he was disciplined for violating this procedure, and he “self-reported the matter to the employer.” Although disqualifying misconduct can be found where an employee disregarded “an employer’s established procedures and policies, particularly where it is potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest” …, here, there was proof in the record confirming that claimant’s lapse in judgment resulted in little risk of injury to him due to the lack of water and paper products in the system during the shutdown. Under the particular circumstances herein, we conclude that there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s decision, regardless of proof that would support a contrary result… . Matter of Lee (Commissioner of Labor), 2014 Slip Op 03563, 3rd Dept 5-15-14

 

You might also like
Police Officer’s Convictions for “Criminal Diversion” (Obtaining Another’s Prescription Medication), and “Official Misconduct” Not Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence
THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED IN THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WAS UNAMBIGUOUS AND PROVIDED EACH PARTY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES; IT WAS THEREFORE ERROR TO AWARD FATHER ATTORNEY’S FEES (THIRD DEPT).
THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DETERMINATION DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA WHERE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX WAS TO BE BUILT; DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND REZONING ORDINANCE VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
BECAUSE THE CRIMES INVOLVED ARE NOT “REGISTRABLE OFFENSES” AND NOTHING IN DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY WERE SEX OFFENSES, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED SPECIALIZED SEXUAL OFFENDER CONDITIONS UPON DEFENDANT’S PROBATION (THIRD DEPT).
Court Deferred to the Agency’s Interpretation of a Statute Because the Interpretation Involved Knowledge and Understanding of the Underlying Operational Practices (In the Usual Case, a Court Will Not Defer to an Agency’s Interpretation of a Statute)/The Term “Business Enterprise” in Tax Law 14 (a) Refers to the Taxable Entity, Not the Legal Entity
Hearing Officer’s Refusal to Provide Requested Documents Required Annulment
Fabricated Checks Using Defendant’s Name and Signature Were Not “Forged Instruments”
THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2017 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE PRIOR ACTION CONCERNED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2019 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Out-of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Injury Caused by Trash Compactor on... Participation in One’s Own Business, Even If the Business Generates No...