In re the Claim of Bruno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bruno

236 A.D.2d 730, 653 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 730 (In re the Claim of Bruno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Bruno, 236 A.D.2d 730, 653 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 10, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a bus driver by the New York City Transit Authority. He was discharged from his employment in December 1991, after his annual physical examination yielded test results that were positive for the presence of cocaine. Claimant had previously tested positive for the presence of cocaine in April 1990. Pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between claimant’s union and the Transit Authority, a hearing was held before an impartial arbitrator who ultimately found against claimant, upholding the penalty of dismissal. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board thereafter ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employ[731]*731ment due to misconduct. We affirm. An employee’s use of cocaine represents a willful disregard of the standards of conduct an employer has the right to expect (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743, 744) and may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Atkinson [B.C.C. Assocs.—Hudacs], 185 AD2d 415, 416). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 10, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a bus driver by the New York City Transit Authority. He was discharged from his employment in December 1991, after his annual physical examination yielded test results that were positive for the presence of cocaine. Claimant had previously tested positive for the presence of cocaine in April 1990. Pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between claimant’s union and the Transit Authority, a hearing was held before an impartial arbitrator who ultimately found against claimant, upholding the penalty of dismissal. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board thereafter ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employ[731]*731ment due to misconduct. We affirm. An employee’s use of cocaine represents a willful disregard of the standards of conduct an employer has the right to expect (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743, 744) and may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Atkinson [B.C.C. Assocs.—Hudacs], 185 AD2d 415, 416). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 730, 653 N.Y.S.2d 728, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bruno-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack