You are here: / / EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS.

EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS.

The Third Department determined claimant’s excessive absenteeism justified the denial of unemployment insurance benefits. The fact claimant didn’t realize the last warning was a final warning did not excuse the behavior:

Excessive absenteeism, which continues despite repeated warnings, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . Here, it is undisputed that claimant was continually absent from work even after she was warned that further absences would result in disciplinary action, including discharge. Although claimant maintains that she did not realize that the last warning was her final one, this does not excuse her behavior under the circumstances presented. Matter of Mead (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 07374, 3rd Dept 11-10-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS)/ABSENTEEISM (EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF BENEFITS)

You might also like
Custody Grant to Grandmother, Rather than Father, Okay
Doctrine of “Practical Location” (to Determine Boundary Line) Explained
Damage to Building Caused by Silica Dust Excluded from Coverage Under “Pollutants” and “Faulty Workmanship” Policy Exclusions
THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AS PART OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL RAISED A PRESUMPTION OF VINDICTIVENESS; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE RESTITUTION WAS PUNISHMENT FOR WINNING THE APPEAL OF THE FIRST TRIAL; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT VACATED THE RESTITUTION; ALSO, THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS WERE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (THIRD DEPT).
DOCUMENTS CREATED AND HELD BY A PRIVATE ENTITY PURSUANT TO THE REGULATIONS OF A STATE AGENCY ARE NOT “RECORDS” WHICH THE STATE AGENCY MUST DISCLOSE PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AGENCY CAN DEMAND PRODUCTION OF THE DOCUMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
“Weight of the Evidence” Review.
AFTER A JUROR CAME FORWARD DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SAY SHE THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER IN HIS CAR DURING THE TRIAL AND OTHER JURORS EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL SPECTATORS, THE JUDGE INTERVIEWED EACH JUROR AND PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON A GROSSLY-UNQUALIFIED-JUROR ARGUMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares

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

DISSATISFACTION WITH JOB ASSIGNMENTS NOT GOOD CAUSE FOR RESIGNING. STRICT LIABILITY OFFENSE CANNOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FELONY FOR FELONY ASSA...