State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 522512 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of

KURTISHA V. SCIPIO,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Kurtisha V. Scipio, New York City, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Bessie Bazile of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed December 15, 2014, which ruled that claimant was

disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits

because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a foster care caseworker for a private

agency for approximately three years, and her duties required her

to prepare progress notes detailing her visits to the homes where

the foster children who she supervised were placed. Claimant was

aware that the progress notes for one month were not to be copied

and pasted from notes entered the month before. In January 2014,

claimant was found to have prepared identical progress notes for

the months of December 2013 and January 2014. In February 2014,

the employer pointed out certain deficiencies in her progress

notes and reminded her that they needed to be prepared anew each

month. Claimant was then found to have prepared duplicate

progress notes during the months of March 2014 and April 2014,

and her employment was subsequently terminated. Her claim for
-2- 522512 

unemployment insurance benefits was ultimately denied by the

Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board on the ground that she

engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Claimant appeals, and we

now affirm. 

Whether a claimant has engaged in disqualifying misconduct

is a factual issue for the Board, and its decision in this regard

will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter

of Camacho [Puppy Paths–Commissioner of Labor], 137 AD3d 1403,

1404 [2016]; Matter of Manieson [Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d

1312, 1313 [2014]). Significantly, a claimant's knowing failure

to comply with a reasonable policy of the employer that is

detrimental to the employer's interest has been found to

constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Manieson

[Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d at 1313; Matter of Reyes

[Commissioner of Labor], 8 AD3d 878, 878-879 [2004]). 

Here, it is undisputed that claimant knew of the employer's

policy regarding the manner in which the progress notes were to

be prepared and disregarded it on multiple occasions. Although

she attributed the duplication of progress notes to a computer

problem, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to

resolve (see Matter of Manieson [Commissioner of Labor], 119 AD3d

at 1313; Matter of Reyes [Commissioner of Labor], 8 AD3d at 879). 

Moreover, inasmuch as the progress notes could be used as

evidence in Family Court proceedings, claimant's actions clearly

undermined the integrity of these documents and adversely

affected the employer's interests. In view of the foregoing,

substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant

engaged in disqualifying misconduct, and we find no reason to

disturb its decision.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
-3- 522512 

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court