In re the Claim of Madden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Madden

251 A.D.2d 880, 674 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7427

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

DecidedJune 18, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 880 (In re the Claim of Madden) 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 Madden, 251 A.D.2d 880, 674 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of [881]*881the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was suspended due to misconduct.

Claimant was suspended from her employment as a typist for engaging in disruptive, insubordinate and threatening behavior, having received prior warnings to refrain from such conduct. Following her suspension, an arbitration hearing was held which resulted in a finding that claimant’s suspension was warranted based upon threats she had made to co-workers and her history of disruptive conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, adopting the factual findings of the arbitrator, found that claimant was suspended from her employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. The use of threats (see, Matter of Cuevas [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 718) and disruptive behavior in the workplace (see, Matter of Martin [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 800) have been held to constitute misconduct. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it will not be disturbed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, 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 [881]*881the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 13, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was suspended due to misconduct.

Claimant was suspended from her employment as a typist for engaging in disruptive, insubordinate and threatening behavior, having received prior warnings to refrain from such conduct. Following her suspension, an arbitration hearing was held which resulted in a finding that claimant’s suspension was warranted based upon threats she had made to co-workers and her history of disruptive conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, adopting the factual findings of the arbitrator, found that claimant was suspended from her employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. The use of threats (see, Matter of Cuevas [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 718) and disruptive behavior in the workplace (see, Matter of Martin [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 800) have been held to constitute misconduct. Inasmuch as substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, it will not be disturbed. Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 880, 674 N.Y.S.2d 486, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-madden-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack