In re the Claim of Collazo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Collazo

228 A.D.2d 840, 644 N.Y.2d 88, 644 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6685

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

DecidedJune 13, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 840 (In re the Claim of Collazo) 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 Collazo, 228 A.D.2d 840, 644 N.Y.2d 88, 644 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was discharged from her position as a school crossing guard for failing to perform her duties. The Board denied her application for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that she was terminated for misconduct. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that claimant, who admitted she understood her duties, failed to stand in the center of the crosswalk, direct traffic or escort the children across the crosswalk. In addition, claimant allowed the children to cross the crosswalk against the light. A police officer, who had observed claimant at her job, testified that three children, who were crossing the intersection without assistance from claimant, were almost struck by motor vehicles. Since claimant’s conduct evinces a willful disregard of behavior which employers have the right to expect of their employees, we find the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743, 744).

White, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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

Claimant was discharged from her position as a school crossing guard for failing to perform her duties. The Board denied her application for unemployment insurance benefits, finding that she was terminated for misconduct. Evidence was adduced at the hearing that claimant, who admitted she understood her duties, failed to stand in the center of the crosswalk, direct traffic or escort the children across the crosswalk. In addition, claimant allowed the children to cross the crosswalk against the light. A police officer, who had observed claimant at her job, testified that three children, who were crossing the intersection without assistance from claimant, were almost struck by motor vehicles. Since claimant’s conduct evinces a willful disregard of behavior which employers have the right to expect of their employees, we find the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Punter [Ross], 43 NY2d 743, 744).

White, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ;, concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 840, 644 N.Y.2d 88, 644 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-collazo-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack