In re the Claim of Khan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Khan

239 A.D.2d 651, 657 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4500

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

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 651 (In re the Claim of Khan) 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 Khan, 239 A.D.2d 651, 657 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4500 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 29, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a security guard assigned to a worksite owned by a client of his employer. The client’s building manager requested that claimant be reassigned after he failed to follow certain instructions. Upon notification of this request, claimant telephoned the building manager and made threatening statements, e.g., that he planned "to sue him personally” and to "blast him”. As a result, claimant’s employment was terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. The utterance of threats to a supervisor or co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Kushner [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1043; Matter of Vega [Hart-nett], 168 AD2d 727, 728) as does conduct that is detrimental to the employer’s interest (see, Matter of Hall [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1043, 1044). Based on the testimony set forth in the record, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 April 29, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a security guard assigned to a worksite owned by a client of his employer. The client’s building manager requested that claimant be reassigned after he failed to follow certain instructions. Upon notification of this request, claimant telephoned the building manager and made threatening statements, e.g., that he planned "to sue him personally” and to "blast him”. As a result, claimant’s employment was terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. The utterance of threats to a supervisor or co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Kushner [Hudacs], 193 AD2d 1043; Matter of Vega [Hart-nett], 168 AD2d 727, 728) as does conduct that is detrimental to the employer’s interest (see, Matter of Hall [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1043, 1044). Based on the testimony set forth in the record, there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 651, 657 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-khan-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack