In re the Claim of Downey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Downey

252 A.D.2d 708, 675 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8189

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 708 (In re the Claim of Downey) 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 Downey, 252 A.D.2d 708, 675 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 2, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed March 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant, a postal worker who was scheduled to be terminated from his employment, entered into a last-chance agreement whereby his termination would be held in abeyance for two years provided that he satisfactorily complete a substance abuse program. The agreement specified that the original termination would be invoked in the event that claimant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. Claimant was terminated from his employment after he was removed from the substance abuse program for nonattendance. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. The arbitrator’s factual findings were properly given collateral estoppel effect in view of the fact that claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct issue at the arbitration hearing (see, Matter of Carter [New York City Dept. of Personnel — Sweeney], 242 AD2d 777, lv denied 91 NY2d 809). Inasmuch as the arbitrator found that claimant failed to comply with the terms of the last-chance agreement despite his knowledge that such conduct would lead to his termination, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decisions [709]*709(see, Matter of Kilgore [Triboro Coach Corp. — Sweeney], 227 AD2d 710). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 2, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed March 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant, a postal worker who was scheduled to be terminated from his employment, entered into a last-chance agreement whereby his termination would be held in abeyance for two years provided that he satisfactorily complete a substance abuse program. The agreement specified that the original termination would be invoked in the event that claimant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. Claimant was terminated from his employment after he was removed from the substance abuse program for nonattendance. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. The arbitrator’s factual findings were properly given collateral estoppel effect in view of the fact that claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct issue at the arbitration hearing (see, Matter of Carter [New York City Dept. of Personnel — Sweeney], 242 AD2d 777, lv denied 91 NY2d 809). Inasmuch as the arbitrator found that claimant failed to comply with the terms of the last-chance agreement despite his knowledge that such conduct would lead to his termination, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decisions [709]*709(see, Matter of Kilgore [Triboro Coach Corp. — Sweeney], 227 AD2d 710). We have reviewed claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 708, 675 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-downey-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack