In Matter of Cheek v. Comm. of Labor

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF THE CLAIM OF MADISON L. CHEEK, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER…

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

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8269 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

512198

11-17-2011

In the Matter of the Claim of MADISON L. CHEEK, Appellant. v. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Robert E. Kellogg, P.C., Tualatin, Oregon (Robert E. Kellogg of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.

Peters

Before: , J.P., Spain, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ.

Robert E. Kellogg, P.C., Tualatin, Oregon (Robert E. Kellogg of counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Marjorie S. Leff of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 1, 2011, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a flight attendant for the employer for one year when, facing termination, she resigned from her employment after it was discovered that she had taken several miniature bottles of alcohol from airplanes without paying for them during layovers on international flights. Ultimately, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. An employee's knowing violation of an employer's established policies and procedures, which has a detrimental effect on the employer's interest, has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Washington [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1603, 1604 [2011]; Matter of Sutton [Albany Med. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1621, 1622 [2011]). Here, claimant admitted to taking the bottles without paying for them and further admitted that she knew that doing so violated the employer's policies. As such, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision (see Matter of Weiner [Commissioner of Labor], 47 AD3d 1040 [2008]; Matter of Wise [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 795, 795-796 [2005]).

Peters, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.