Matter of Ruland (Commissioner of Labor)

Annotate this Case
Matter of Ruland (Commissioner of Labor) 2013 NY Slip Op 06053 Decided on September 26, 2013 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: September 26, 2013
516004 In the Matter of the Claim of

[*1]EDWARD J. RULAND, Appellant.

and

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

Calendar Date: July 29, 2013
Before: Rose, J.P., McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ.


Tierney & Tierney, Port Jefferson Station (Stephen A.
Ruland of counsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York
City (Gary Leibowitz of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 12, 2012, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a security officer working the night shift in a hospital emergency department, was discharged for sleeping on the job. Despite having been previously notified that such behavior was prohibited and could result in termination, claimant conceded that he dozed off while on duty. Inasmuch as the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board properly found from this evidence that claimant acted in a manner "detrimental to the employer's interest or in violation of a reasonable work condition" (Matter of De Grego [Levine], 39 NY2d 180, 184 [1976]; accord Matter of Clum [All-Lifts, Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1171, 1172 [2008]), substantial evidence supports its determination that he lost his employment through disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Fairley [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 781, 781 [2004]; Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 931, 931 [1998]).

Rose, J.P., McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.