You are here: / / POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CONSTITUTED DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT.

POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CONSTITUTED DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT.

The Third Department determined claimant's criminal conviction disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Claimant had been a service aide for the developmentally disabled for 25 years and pled guilty to possession of marijuana:

Criminal convictions arising from conduct occurring outside the workplace have been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct where they demonstrate a breach of the standards of behavior to be reasonably expected by an employer in light of the nature of the employment involved … . Significantly, claimant's job responsibilities included, among other things, dispensing medications to developmentally disabled individuals. Given the environment in which claimant worked, it was reasonable for the employer to expect that claimant would not illegally use or possess controlled substances. Clearly, claimant's criminal conduct posed a risk to the employer's mission and was detrimental to its interests. Therefore, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct … . Matter of Hall (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 03797, 3rd Dept 5-12-16

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CONSTITUTED DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT)

You might also like
Teacher Who Was Encouraged by the Superintendent to Resign Her Tenured Teaching Position to Take A Library-Position Which Was Subsequently Eliminated Did Not Thereby Voluntarily Waive Her Seniority Rights—She Was Entitled to Reinstatement In Her Tenured Teaching Position With Back Pay
HEARING OFFICER IMPROPERLY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF WITNESS PETITIONER COULD CALL, NEW HEARING REQUIRED.
Failure to Apply for Zoning Variance Re: Sale of Adult Materials Rendered Plaintiff’s Free-Speech Challenge to the Code Speculative, i.e., Not Ripe for Review
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Which Included Service by E-Mail and Text Message) Required Dismissal of the Petitions
BOTH THE HIPAA PRIVACY RULE AND THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW APPLY TO THE FOIL REQUEST FOR RECORDS DOCUMENTING INJURIES SUFFERED BY ATHLETES USING THE OLYMPIC TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE ADIRONDACK PARK; THE HIPAA DEIDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE REQUESTED RECORDS (THIRD DEPT). ​
HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE WINTESSES’ REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RENEW HIS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO “NEW FACTS” WERE DEMONSTRATED (THIRD DEPT).
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) WHERE FINAL JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED DOES NOT VIOLATE PLAINTIFF’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS; HERE THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED IN 2008 AND THE CURRENT FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS THEREFORE UNTIMELY PURSUANT TO THE FAPA (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

 DISPUTED BOUNDARY PROVEN THROUGH DOCTRINE OF PRACTICAL LOCATION. STATUTE REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ACCIDENT DID NOT REQUIRE NOTICE OF ALL...