Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim Maria Camacho, Appellant. Puppy Paths, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-10
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 1403
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim Maria Camacho, Appellant. Puppy Paths, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Judges: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 1403–1404

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim Maria Camacho, Appellant. Puppy Paths, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
[25 NYS3d 919]

Opinion:
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 AD3d 1195, 1195 [2014] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Cheeseboro [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1635, 1636 [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 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2014]; see Matter of Pratt [Cellular Sales of N.Y. LLC—Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1026, 1027 [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.
Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.