From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re the Claim of Syed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 16, 2009
61 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 505068.

April 16, 2009.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 19, 2007, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.

Rosina Caputo, Nassau/Suffolk Law Services, Hempstead, for appellant.

Jackson Lewis, LLP, Melville (David Ehrlich of counsel), for IKEA New York, LLC, respondent.

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


Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's finding that claimant, a sales associate, was discharged from his employment due to misconduct. "It is well established that an employee's unauthorized absence from work may constitute disqualifying misconduct" ( Matter of Tahat [Commissioner of Labor], 58 AD3d 921, 921 [citations omitted]; see Matter of Chiou [Commissioner of Labor], 22 AD3d 1024). Here, the record reveals that claimant was absent from work for approximately five weeks, even though his employer had approved only a two-week vacation leave. To the extent that claimant disputes the employer's version of the underlying events and contends, among other things, that he was absent due to a previously authorized medical leave, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Ramirez [Commissioner of Labor], 49 AD3d 953, 954).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re the Claim of Syed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 16, 2009
61 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

In re the Claim of Syed

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of THE CLAIM OF FAZLUL H. SYED, Appellant. IKEA NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2009

Citations

61 A.D.3d 1197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 2875
877 N.Y.S.2d 492

Citing Cases

Malcolm v. Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. Dist.

Furthermore, claimant did not submit to a scheduled medical examination required by the employer in order to…

Malcolm v. Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. Dist.

Furthermore, claimant did not submit to a scheduled medical examination required by the employer in order to…