From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Blickley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 19, 1998
247 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 19, 1998

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Claimant was a cable installer for a cable company and was paid on a piece work, per job basis, apparently based upon bills he submitted to the employer. He was discharged after a quality control investigation revealed that he had been engaging in improper billing practices despite prior warnings that such conduct could result in his termination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he had been terminated due to misconduct. We affirm. It has been held that a violation of an employer's policy of which the employee is aware may constitute disqualifying misconduct ( see, Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream, Inc. — Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 809; see, e.g., Matter of Chen [Hudacs], 188 A.D.2d 812) as does engaging in conduct which is potentially detrimental to an employer's interests ( see, Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 A.D.2d 932). Based on the testimony and evidence set forth in the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.

Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Blickley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 19, 1998
247 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Blickley

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of RICHARD F. BLICKLEY, Appellant. JOHN E…

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

Date published: Feb 19, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 738 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 74

Citing Cases

Matter of Forde

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant…

Matter of Block

Claimant acknowledged that she was aware of the employers policy and that she had received the employee…