Opinion
April 30, 1998
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Claimant was terminated from her position as a residential counselor for a mental health treatment facility for teenagers following an incident whereby a disturbance broke out after a client received unauthorized visitors in violation of the employers policy. Although other counselors were already on duty when claimant started her shift, claimant was shift supervisor. Claimant was discharged for her failure to take action to remove the visitors when she started her shift and realized that the rule was being violated.
We find that substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Boards decision that claimant was terminated due to misconduct ( see, Matter of Gallo [Hudacs], 206 A.D.2d 649, 650). Although claimant maintains that she was unfairly singled out for punishment by the employer, the record indicates that she had been disciplined for rule infractions in the past and, in any event, "[f]ailure to comply with the employers established policies and procedures constitutes disqualifying misconduct" ( Matter of Rooney [Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 775). To the extent that claimant presented testimony that conflicted with that of the employer, this presented an issue of credibility for the Board to resolve ( Matter of Sands [Sweeney], 243 A.D.2d 798).
Mikoll, J.P., Mercure, White, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.