From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 21, 1999
265 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

October 21, 1999

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 30, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.


Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was discharged from his employment as a night doorman for a residential building management company under disqualifying circumstances. The record reveals that claimant repeatedly blocked the outer doors by inserting a baseball bat through the door handles or locking them with a bicycle chain, which prevented tenants from immediately accessing the building late at night. Claimant's conduct was in contravention of the employer's repeated security instructions that the outer doors must remain unlocked and unobstructed at all times. Under these circumstances, claimant's insubordinate conduct of failing to abide by the employer's repeated directive constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Seguin [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 747), despite claimant's proffered excuse for his actions. Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, MERCURE, CREW III and YESAWICH JR., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Cramer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 21, 1999
265 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Cramer

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER of the CLAIM of BENJAMIN D. CRAMER II, Appellant. GEREL…

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

Date published: Oct 21, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 725 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 313

Citing Cases

Matter of Claim of Frazier

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was…