Court Opinion

ID: 2776964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-02-05 16:07:11.698876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:02.751318
License: Public Domain

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 17, 2014, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
 

  Claimant worked as a technician for the employer, a cable installation contractor, for five years. The employer allowed technicians to use their own personal vehicles for work and they received extra compensation for doing so. It also had a policy prohibiting technicians from having anyone in their vehicles during the course of the work day without authorization. On September 8, 2011, claimant reported to work driving his own personal vehicle with his wife as a passenger and, after obtaining his work schedule, dropped his wife off at a doctor’s appointment before arriving at his first call. The employer found this to be a violation of its policy and terminated claimant’s employment. Claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was initially denied on the ground that his employment was terminated due to misconduct. This determination was later overruled by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision, entitling claimant to receive benefits. The employer now appeals.
 

  Whether the behavior providing the basis for termination constitutes misconduct disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence
  
   (see Matter of Cardenas [Metropolitan Cable Communications, Inc.
  
  — Commissioner
  
   of Labor],
  
  118 AD3d 1234, 1234-1235 [2014];
  
   Matter of Andrews [A.C. Roman & Assoc.
  
  — Commissioner
  
   of Labor],
  
  118 AD3d 1216, 1216-1217 [2014]). “Significantly, ‘not every mistake, exercise of poor judgment or discharge for cause will rise to the level of misconduct’ ”
  
   (Matter of Okano [Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP
  
  — Commissioner
  
   of Labor],
  
  114 AD3d 1128, 1128-1129 [2014], quoting
  
   Matter of Bush [St. Luke’s Cornwall
  
  Hosp.—
  
   Commissioner of Labor],
  
  60 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2009];
  
   see Matter of Nangreave [United Health Servs. Hosps., Inc.
  
  — Commis
  
   sioner of Labor],
  
  107 AD3d 1211, 1212 [2013]). Here, the written policy that claimant was charged with violating related specifically to company-owned vehicles and did not address employees’ personal vehicles. To the extent that the employer applied the policy to personal vehicles used by employees for work purposes as well, claimant’s technical violation may be viewed as an innocent mistake. In light of this, and given the absence of credible evidence establishing that claimant had
   
   *1043
   
  received prior warnings for such conduct,
  
   *
  
  substantial evidence supports the conclusion that claimant’s transgression was an isolated occurrence that did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct
  
   (see Matter of Okano [Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP
  
  — Commissioner
  
   of Labor],
  
  114 AD3d at 1129;
  
   Matter of Jaiyesimi [ISS Action Inc.
  
  — Commissioner
  
   of Labor],
  
  114 AD3d 983, 984 [2014];
  
   Matter of McKoy [LB&B Assoc., Inc.
  
  — Commissioner
  
   of Labor],
  
  27 AD3d 922, 923 [2006]). Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.
 

  Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.
 

  Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
 

   *
  

   Although claimant’s former supervisor testified that he had previously given claimant a verbal warning regarding such conduct, he subsequently gave directly contradictory testimony.