In re the Claim of Bucolo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Bucolo

6 A.D.3d 917, 774 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4486

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

DecidedApril 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 917 (In re the Claim of Bucolo) 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 Bucolo, 6 A.D.3d 917, 774 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 10, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment as a warehouse packer due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was discharged [918]*918after claimant’s friend made numerous threatening telephone calls to claimant’s supervisor following a disagreement between claimant and his supervisor. Although claimant denies threatening the supervisor or asking his friend to do so, claimant pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation in connection with the incident. Inasmuch as threatening a supervisor can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Ramos [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 791 [2003]; Matter of Shaw [S’il Vous Plait Message Mgt. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 302 AD2d 655 [2003]; Matter of Vega [Hartnett], 168 AD2d 727, 728 [1990]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision under these circumstances.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, 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 February 10, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment as a warehouse packer due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was discharged [918]*918after claimant’s friend made numerous threatening telephone calls to claimant’s supervisor following a disagreement between claimant and his supervisor. Although claimant denies threatening the supervisor or asking his friend to do so, claimant pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation in connection with the incident. Inasmuch as threatening a supervisor can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Ramos [Commissioner of Labor], 306 AD2d 791 [2003]; Matter of Shaw [S’il Vous Plait Message Mgt. Ctr.—Commissioner of Labor], 302 AD2d 655 [2003]; Matter of Vega [Hartnett], 168 AD2d 727, 728 [1990]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision under these circumstances.

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 917, 774 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-bucolo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack