From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 14, 2008
48 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 502832.

February 14, 2008.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 2, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Samuel Ruiz, New York City, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City (Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Spain, Kane, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ.


Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment as a result of disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was absent from work from December 12, 2005 until December 28, 2005. Although the employer required its employees to report their absences on a daily basis, claimant admitted that he called only every few days. Inasmuch as a claimant's failure to abide by an employer's call-in policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct ( see Matter of Montgomery [Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1068, 1069; Matter of Serafin [Commissioner of Labor], 23 AD3d 980, 980; Matter of Sundin [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 831, 832), we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Ruiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 14, 2008
48 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

In re Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of SAMUEL RUIZ, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF…

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

Date published: Feb 14, 2008

Citations

48 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
851 N.Y.S.2d 290

Citing Cases

In re Lester

We affirm. An employee's failure to comply with an employer's reasonable call-in policy has been held to…