Opinion
03-10-2016
In the Matter of the Claim of Maria CAMACHO, Appellant. Puppy Paths, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Maria Camacho, Corona, appellant pro se. Angela Pulci, Puppy Paths, New York City, respondent pro se.
Maria Camacho, Corona, appellant pro se.
Angela Pulci, Puppy Paths, New York City, respondent pro se.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 10, 2014, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
On November 19, 2013, claimant was discharged from her job as a dog walker for failing to walk the dogs for the amount of time that the employer's clients had requested. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. "Conduct that is detrimental to an employer's interest and contrary to an established policy has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct" (Matter of Portis [Commissioner of Labor], 118 A.D.3d 1195, 1195, 987 N.Y.S.2d 519 [2014] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Cheeseboro [Commissioner of Labor], 84 A.D.3d 1635, 1636, 923 N.Y.S.2d 772 [2011] ). "Whether a claimant's actions rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Okano [Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP–Commissioner of Labor], 114 A.D.3d 1128, 1128, 981 N.Y.S.2d 194 [2014] ; see Matter of Pratt [Cellular Sales of N.Y. LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 125 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 3 N.Y.S.3d 175 [2015] ). The hearing testimony and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that claimant walked dogs for less than the scheduled length of time, which claimant was aware violated the employer's established policies governing client care and maintaining accurate time sheet records, and that such conduct was detrimental to the employer's best interest.ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ., concur.