In re the Claim of Cutler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Cutler

286 A.D.2d 796, 729 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8460

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 796 (In re the Claim of Cutler) 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 Cutler, 286 A.D.2d 796, 729 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 23, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[797]*797Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a medical transcriptionist in the employer’s radiology department, engaged in disqualifying misconduct. The record reveals that claimant left a meeting with a supervisor when claimant’s request to tape record the conversation was denied. Thereafter, claimant refused repeated requests by her supervisors to speak in private. Claimant was immediately placed on suspension when she failed to abide by the supervisors’ warning that her continued conduct could lead to suspension. Claimant was subsequently discharged as a result of the incident. Inasmuch as claimant refused to abide by a reasonable request of the employer (see, Matter of Dorn [Marist Coll. — Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1031; Matter of Palko [M T V — Hudacs], 189 AD2d 1053), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her claims that the Board misapprehended material facts and that a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board requires reversal of the Board’s decision, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 June 23, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[797]*797Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant, a medical transcriptionist in the employer’s radiology department, engaged in disqualifying misconduct. The record reveals that claimant left a meeting with a supervisor when claimant’s request to tape record the conversation was denied. Thereafter, claimant refused repeated requests by her supervisors to speak in private. Claimant was immediately placed on suspension when she failed to abide by the supervisors’ warning that her continued conduct could lead to suspension. Claimant was subsequently discharged as a result of the incident. Inasmuch as claimant refused to abide by a reasonable request of the employer (see, Matter of Dorn [Marist Coll. — Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1031; Matter of Palko [M T V — Hudacs], 189 AD2d 1053), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her claims that the Board misapprehended material facts and that a ruling from the National Labor Relations Board requires reversal of the Board’s decision, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 796, 729 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cutler-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack