In re the Claim of Schnabel, 307 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Schnabel, 307 A.D.2d 572 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Davis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Thus, claimant’s contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the delay was due to a ministerial error by his former attorney is not properly before us (see generally Matter of Horvath [Residence Inn/Buffalo Lodging Assoc., L.L.C.—Commissioner of Labor], 32 AD3d 1089 [2006]; Matter of Schnabel [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 572, 572-573 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Armellino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that continued absenteeism and tardiness despite previous warnings can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Schnabel [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 572, 572 [2003] [citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Orzelek
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
We affirm. “ Tt is well settled that continued absenteeism and tardiness despite previous warnings can constitute disquali lying misconduct’ ” (Matter of Miller [Commissioner of Labor], 9 AD3d 567, 568 [2004], quoting Matter of Schnabel [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 572, 572 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Garcia-Primer
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
A claimant’s continued absenteeism after numerous warnings may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Kryszak [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 645, 646 [2003]; Matter of Schnabel [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 572, 572-573 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
“It is well settled that continued absenteeism and tardiness despite previous warnings can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Schnabel [Commissioner of Labor], 307 AD2d 572, 572 [2003] [citations omitted]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of Giovana Schnabel, Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 17, 2003.
307 A.D.2d 572
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 20, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was discharged from her employment as an account specialist for an office supply business due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant had been previously suspended for three days due to excessive tardiness and absences when, on her first scheduled return date, she called in sick due to a migraine. On her next scheduled day, she arrived half an hour late. As a result, claimant was suspended again until further notice. The following day and without authorization to return, claimant reported to work. Thereafter, claimant eventually complied with her supervisor’s repeated orders to leave the work place.

It is well settled that continued absenteeism and tardiness despite previous warnings can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Chapman [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 857 [2000]; Matter of Hahn [Hudacs], 206 AD2d 582 [1994]). Although claimant testified that she was absent due to a migraine and late due to her child’s asthma, the medical[*573] documentation included in her brief was never submitted in the proceedings before the Board and thus cannot be considered for the first time on this appeal (see Matter of Allen [United States Dept. of Interior — Hartnett], 154 AD2d 732 [1989]; see also Matter of Aronson [Hudacs], 194 AD2d 1046 [1993]). Moreover, insubordinate conduct of failing to abide by an employer’s reasonable requests has been held to constitute misconduct (see Matter of Frazier [Commissioner of Labor], 273 AD2d 676 [2000]). Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.