Opinion
September 24, 1992
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
On May 2, 1990, claimant informed her supervisor that she would not be working on May 29, 1990 as she had plans to go to Atlantic City, New Jersey, for the day. Although in the past claimant had usually been granted her requests for days off, on this occasion claimant's supervisor informed claimant that she could not take the day off due to a shortage of available personnel. The record also reveals that in March 1990 claimant was advised that her future requests for days off would not be accommodated as regularly as had previously been done. Although claimant was informed on May 24, 1990 that she would be fired if she was absent on the 29th, claimant did not report to work on that day and her employment was therefore terminated. Under the circumstances, the conclusion that claimant's employment ended under disqualifying conditions and that her actions constituted misconduct is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld (see, Matter of Goldfarb [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 965; Matter of Cicci [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 705).
Mikoll, J.P., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.