In re the Claim of Cooke-Johnson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cooke-Johnson

210 A.D.2d 719, 620 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12749

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 719 (In re the Claim of Cooke-Johnson) 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 Cooke-Johnson, 210 A.D.2d 719, 620 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 31, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a claims analyst. Claimant, after using vulgar language in an argument with a co-worker, was warned that such language was inappropriate and not acceptable. Claimant subsequently again used vulgar language while at work and, when called to her supervisor’s office to discuss the incident, walked out of the meeting. We therefore find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that this conduct constituted misconduct.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey 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 March 31, 1994, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a claims analyst. Claimant, after using vulgar language in an argument with a co-worker, was warned that such language was inappropriate and not acceptable. Claimant subsequently again used vulgar language while at work and, when called to her supervisor’s office to discuss the incident, walked out of the meeting. We therefore find substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that this conduct constituted misconduct.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 719, 620 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cooke-johnson-nyappdiv-1994.