From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 26, 2007
42 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 502000.

July 26, 2007.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 14, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Tina Goldman, Palisades Park, New Jersey, appellant pro se.

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, L.L.P., New York City (Ricki E. Roer of counsel), for Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.


Claimant worked as an office manager at a hospital. After a coworker reported that claimant had smoked in the office they shared, thereby violating the employer's policy prohibiting smoking on the premises, the employer conducted an investigation. Based upon the evidence adduced, the employer planned to terminate claimant's employment. Claimant resigned from her position in lieu of being discharged and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. "It is well settled that failure to abide by a known policy of the employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct" ( Matter of Wise [Commissioner of Labor], 19 AD3d 795, 795 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Norvell [Charles Schwab Co., Inc. — Commissioner of Labor], 12 AD3d 830, 831). Here, claimant was aware of the employer's strict no smoking policy, and the testimony of her coworker and the employer's labor relations director establishes that she violated the same. Although claimant denied smoking on the employer's premises and testified that the smell of smoke in her office was attributable to patients who were smoking in rooms nearby, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Oddo [Lee Pubis. — Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1061, 1062).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 26, 2007
42 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

In re Goldman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of TINA GOLDMAN, Appellant. BRONX-LEBANON…

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

Date published: Jul 26, 2007

Citations

42 A.D.3d 847 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 6206
840 N.Y.S.2d 455

Citing Cases

In re Warren

We affirm. An employee's failure to abide by an employer's known policy has been held to constitute…

In re Rose

The employer became aware of the accident several days later when it was contacted by the other driver's…