In re the Claim of Guerriero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guerriero

247 A.D.2d 746, 669 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1559

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 746 (In re the Claim of Guerriero) 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 Guerriero, 247 A.D.2d 746, 669 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 18, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its previous decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an armed security guard at a Federal Reserve Bank building until his employment was terminated after he inadvertently discharged a revolver in the bank’s lobby. The record discloses that claimant was examining the gun of a fellow employee and, in order to test the trigger action, unloaded it and depressed the trigger. A bullet remaining in the gun discharged and, after ricocheting off a glass door and a stone wall, landed in the vestibule. Claimant was fired after the bank informed his employer that it no longer wanted his services. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had lost his employment due to [747]*747disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. A claimant’s commission of acts that violate generally accepted standards of employee behavior or that are contrary to the employer’s best interests has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Abbott [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 653, 654; Matter of Hall [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1043,1044). Testimony at claimant’s hearing disclosed that claimant’s conduct not only endangered the safety of everyone in or near the bank’s lobby but that it also subjected the employer’s security agency to derision and ultimately led to the discontinuance of armed guards at all Federal Reserve Banks. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision which is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Peters and Carpinello, 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 November 18, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its previous decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as an armed security guard at a Federal Reserve Bank building until his employment was terminated after he inadvertently discharged a revolver in the bank’s lobby. The record discloses that claimant was examining the gun of a fellow employee and, in order to test the trigger action, unloaded it and depressed the trigger. A bullet remaining in the gun discharged and, after ricocheting off a glass door and a stone wall, landed in the vestibule. Claimant was fired after the bank informed his employer that it no longer wanted his services. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had lost his employment due to [747]*747disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. A claimant’s commission of acts that violate generally accepted standards of employee behavior or that are contrary to the employer’s best interests has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Abbott [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 653, 654; Matter of Hall [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1043,1044). Testimony at claimant’s hearing disclosed that claimant’s conduct not only endangered the safety of everyone in or near the bank’s lobby but that it also subjected the employer’s security agency to derision and ultimately led to the discontinuance of armed guards at all Federal Reserve Banks. We conclude that substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision which is, accordingly, affirmed.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, White, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 746, 669 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guerriero-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack