In re the Claim of Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Castro

250 A.D.2d 909, 672 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349

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

DecidedMay 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 909 (In re the Claim of Castro) 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 Castro, 250 A.D.2d 909, 672 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 6, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a porter after he threatened the building superintendent during a dispute over claimant’s pay and hours. In our view, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant’s actions rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct. There can be no dispute that issuing threats to one’s supervisor or engaging in conduct that is detrimental to the employer’s interests constitutes misconduct (see, Matter of Khan [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 651, 652). Although claimant disputed the building superintendent’s account of the incident and testified that he never threatened to have him murdered, it was for the Board to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the differing evidence accordingly (see, Matter of Eggers [Sweeney], 215 AD2d 859).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 December 6, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a porter after he threatened the building superintendent during a dispute over claimant’s pay and hours. In our view, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision finding that claimant’s actions rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct. There can be no dispute that issuing threats to one’s supervisor or engaging in conduct that is detrimental to the employer’s interests constitutes misconduct (see, Matter of Khan [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 651, 652). Although claimant disputed the building superintendent’s account of the incident and testified that he never threatened to have him murdered, it was for the Board to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the differing evidence accordingly (see, Matter of Eggers [Sweeney], 215 AD2d 859).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 909, 672 N.Y.S.2d 515, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-castro-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack