In re the Claim of Cedeno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cedeno

6 A.D.3d 1035, 775 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056

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

DecidedApril 29, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 1035 (In re the Claim of Cedeno) 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 Cedeno, 6 A.D.3d 1035, 775 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 7, 2003, 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 that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct for fighting with a coworker. Regardless of who initiates the altercation, fighting with a coworker during working hours can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of McCray [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 1010 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 502 [2003]; Matter of Labayen [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 1014, 1015 [2003]; Matter of Ferrarie [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 420, 421 [1991]). Claimant’s assertion that she was acting in self-defense presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve inasmuch as there was countervailing testimony that she had an opportunity to walk away from the situation before it escalated into a physical altercation (see Matter of Love [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 674 [1998]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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 August 7, 2003, 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 that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct for fighting with a coworker. Regardless of who initiates the altercation, fighting with a coworker during working hours can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of McCray [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 1010 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 502 [2003]; Matter of Labayen [Commissioner of Labor], 301 AD2d 1014, 1015 [2003]; Matter of Ferrarie [Hartnett], 176 AD2d 420, 421 [1991]). Claimant’s assertion that she was acting in self-defense presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve inasmuch as there was countervailing testimony that she had an opportunity to walk away from the situation before it escalated into a physical altercation (see Matter of Love [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 674 [1998]).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 1035, 775 N.Y.S.2d 601, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cedeno-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack