In re the Claim of Guibert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Guibert

254 A.D.2d 661, 679 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11472

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 661 (In re the Claim of Guibert) 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 Guibert, 254 A.D.2d 661, 679 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 5, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as an AIDS program coordinator at a community health center for violating the employer’s confidentiality policy by divulging information about a prospective client to a colleague who was not a coworker. Although the name of the prospective client was not revealed, a third party who overheard the conversation was able to identify the client. Thereafter, the third party relayed [662]*662the information to the client’s sister, who considered taking action against the employer. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits upon the ground that her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Inasmuch as claimant acted contrary to the employer’s known policy and such conduct was potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Gibson [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 906; Matter of Block [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 870). While the Board reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, it is well settled that the Board is free to resolve credibility issues differently from the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Lugo [Milford Mgt. — Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 742). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. 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 August 5, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as an AIDS program coordinator at a community health center for violating the employer’s confidentiality policy by divulging information about a prospective client to a colleague who was not a coworker. Although the name of the prospective client was not revealed, a third party who overheard the conversation was able to identify the client. Thereafter, the third party relayed [662]*662the information to the client’s sister, who considered taking action against the employer. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits upon the ground that her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Inasmuch as claimant acted contrary to the employer’s known policy and such conduct was potentially detrimental to the employer’s best interest, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Gibson [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 906; Matter of Block [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 870). While the Board reversed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, it is well settled that the Board is free to resolve credibility issues differently from the Administrative Law Judge (see, Matter of Lugo [Milford Mgt. — Commissioner of Labor], 251 AD2d 742). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 661, 679 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-guibert-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack