In re the Claim of Haungs

51 A.D.3d 1352, 860 N.Y.S.2d 638
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 29, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 1352 (In re the Claim of Haungs) 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 Haungs, 51 A.D.3d 1352, 860 N.Y.S.2d 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 10, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for the employer as a junior cyclotron operator from December 10, 1998 until November 20, 2006, when he was fired after referring to his supervisor as a “stupid b. . .h” while talking with a coworker. Approximately three weeks prior to this incident, claimant had been given a written warning regarding other insubordinate behavior toward his supervisor, including notice that further similar conduct could result in his termination. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he had been discharged due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. To be sure, “disrespectful conduct toward a supervisor, including the use of vulgar language, may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 20 AD3d 789, 790 [2005]). Here, noting that claimant conceded that he used the language in question to describe his supervisor, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see id.). Claimant’s assertion that he was fired because he had raised certain safety concerns created a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see Matter of Spencer [Commissioner of Labor], 22 AD3d 1010, 1010 [2005]). To the extent not specifically addressed herein, claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be unavailing.

Peters, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, Kane and Stein, 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

Related

Matter of Evens (Commissioner of Labor)
2019 NY Slip Op 6665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
In re the Claim of Morar
86 A.D.3d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Auguste
61 A.D.3d 1242 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 1352, 860 N.Y.S.2d 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-haungs-nyappdiv-2008.