In re the Claim of Legault

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Legault

286 A.D.2d 795, 729 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8472

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 795 (In re the Claim of Legault) 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 Legault, 286 A.D.2d 795, 729 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 1, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a hotel housekeeper after she refused to work a mandatory overtime assignment despite having been warned that if she failed to report for the assignment her employment would be terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant appeals and we affirm. The record reveals that claimant understood that occasional overtime hours were a condition of employment as she testified that she had worked numerous overtime assignments in the past when her employer asked her to do so. This Court has held that an employee’s refusal to accept reasonable work or overtime assignments may rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Estremera [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 694; Matter of David [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 793). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, 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 September 1, 2000, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a hotel housekeeper after she refused to work a mandatory overtime assignment despite having been warned that if she failed to report for the assignment her employment would be terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she was terminated due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant appeals and we affirm. The record reveals that claimant understood that occasional overtime hours were a condition of employment as she testified that she had worked numerous overtime assignments in the past when her employer asked her to do so. This Court has held that an employee’s refusal to accept reasonable work or overtime assignments may rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Estremera [Sweeney], 244 AD2d 694; Matter of David [Sweeney], 224 AD2d 793). Accordingly, we conclude that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 795, 729 N.Y.S.2d 811, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-legault-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack