From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maldonado v. Good Day Apartments, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 26, 2014
118 A.D.3d 1246 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-06-26

In the Matter of the Claim of Fernando MALDONADO, Appellant. Good Day Apartments, Inc., Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Fernando Maldonado, New York City, appellant pro se. Clifton, Budd & DeMaria, LLP, New York City (Arthur J. Robb of counsel), for Good Day Apartments, Inc., respondent.



Fernando Maldonado, New York City, appellant pro se. Clifton, Budd & DeMaria, LLP, New York City (Arthur J. Robb of counsel), for Good Day Apartments, Inc., respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., STEIN, GARRY, EGAN JR. and DEVINE, JJ.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 31, 2013, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost his employment as an assistant superintendent for a property management company as a result of disqualifying misconduct. Violation of an employer's known policies, as well as unauthorized absence from work, have been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct ( see Matter of Garrett [Commissioner of Labor ], 67 A.D.3d 1160, 1161, 888 N.Y.S.2d 331 [2009];see also Matter of Almanzar [Commissioner of Labor ], 65 A.D.3d 1418, 1418, 885 N.Y.S.2d 545 [2009] ). Here, the record reflects that, in contravention of the employer's established and known policies, claimant took unauthorized breaks and left the work premises for over an hour without notifying the employer, notwithstanding the fact that he had received prior warnings that such conduct could lead to termination of his employment. Any inconsistencies in the testimony created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Almanzar [Commissioner of Labor], 65 A.D.3d at 1418, 885 N.Y.S.2d 545).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Maldonado v. Good Day Apartments, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jun 26, 2014
118 A.D.3d 1246 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

Maldonado v. Good Day Apartments, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of Fernando MALDONADO, Appellant. Good Day…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 26, 2014

Citations

118 A.D.3d 1246 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
118 A.D.3d 1246
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 4844