From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Kreppel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 9, 1991
173 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

May 9, 1991

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


The evidence established that claimant had previously been told that his attendance needed improvement and that he had been warned in writing that any further unexcused absences would result in his termination. The employer's rules also gave it the prerogative to request a doctor's note when an employee was absent due to an alleged illness. At the hearings, claimant admitted that he had received the warnings and that despite being told to submit medical documentation to explain his absence on the Friday before his discharge, he failed to do so. Under the circumstances, the determination that claimant's failure to produce a doctor's note constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Solanikow [Berliner Marx — Ross], 67 A.D.2d 793; Matter of Patterson [Levine], 50 A.D.2d 703, appeal dismissed 38 N.Y.2d 937).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Kreppel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 9, 1991
173 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Kreppel

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of JEROME B. KREPPEL, Appellant. THOMAS F…

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

Date published: May 9, 1991

Citations

173 A.D.2d 1001 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
569 N.Y.S.2d 525

Citing Cases

Matter of the Claim of Yager

As a probationary employee who worked for the employer less than two months, claimant was aware that failure…

In the Matter of the Claim Armbruster

Significantly, claimant was given numerous warnings and suspensions regarding his excessive absenteeism and…