From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 26, 2011
84 A.D.3d 1672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 511088.

May 26, 2011.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 8, 2010, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Sarah A. Watson, Mohawk, appellant pro se., Getman, Franchi Applegate, Ilion (Robert W. Applegate of counsel), for The Mohawk Homestead, respondent.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: Peters, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ.


Claimant worked for the employer as a housekeeping aide for approximately three years when her employment was terminated after she left work prior to the completion of her shift and against an expressed directive from her supervisor not to do so. After claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, as relevant here, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied the claim, ruling that claimant lost her job under disqualifying circumstances. Claimant now appeals.

The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. An employee's unauthorized departure from work may constitute misconduct ( see Matter of Young [Commissioner of Labor], 73 AD3d 1318; Matter of Pedigo [Townhouse Apts. at Lido BeachCommissioner of Labor], 57 AD3d 1188, 1189). The employment records demonstrate that claimant was scheduled to work until 1:00 P.M. on the day in question, but that she punched out at 12:02 P.M. Furthermore, both of claimant's supervisors testified, and claimant herself admitted, that she had requested to leave early that day, but that her request had been denied. Claimant's contention that she had an agreement with the employer to leave early to care for her children presented a credibility question to be resolved by the Board ( see Matter of Lumbrazo [Environmental Remediation Servs., Inc.Commissioner of Labor], 79 AD3d 1500, 1500; Matter of Young [Commissioner of Labor], 73 AD3d at 1318).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 26, 2011
84 A.D.3d 1672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In re Watson

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of SARAH A. WATSON, Appellant. THE MOHAWK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 26, 2011

Citations

84 A.D.3d 1672 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 4346
923 N.Y.S.2d 797

Citing Cases

Santos v. Manhattan Valley Mgmt. Co.

Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the final incident that caused claimant's…

In re Santos

Substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the final incident that caused claimant's…