In re the Claim of Kilgore

227 A.D.2d 710, 641 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4735
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 2, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 710 (In re the Claim of Kilgore) 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 Kilgore, 227 A.D.2d 710, 641 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 30, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

After engaging in a physical confrontation with a co-worker, claimant was terminated from her position as a bus driver. She contested her discharge at a hearing before an arbitrator. The arbitrator found that claimant was terminated for cause and upheld her discharge. Thereafter, at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), the ALJ denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that claimant was terminated for misconduct. This decision was affirmed by the Board. Claimant now appeals.

Given the identity of issue involved in the arbitration hearing and this proceeding, as well as the fact that claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue at the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator’s factual findings were properly given collateral estoppel effect (see, Matter of Guimarales [New York City Bd. of Educ. — Roberts], 68 NY2d 989). In view of the arbitrator’s factual findings, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant engaged in [711]*711misconduct disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see, Matter of Douglas [Hartnett], 143 AD2d 458). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, 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

New York State Department of Labor v. New York State Division of Human Rights
71 A.D.3d 1234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Claim of De La Concha
271 A.D.2d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
In re the Claim of Downey
252 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re the Claim of Carter
242 A.D.2d 777 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Foldes
241 A.D.2d 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re the Claim of Marcus
235 A.D.2d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.D.2d 710, 641 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-kilgore-nyappdiv-1996.