In re the Claim of Marcus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Marcus

235 A.D.2d 886, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 529

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 886 (In re the Claim of Marcus) 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 Marcus, 235 A.D.2d 886, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 5, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[887]*887Claimant was employed as a clerical worker for a heating oil delivery company when he became embroiled in a dispute with a co-worker and threatened him with a knife. As a result, claimant was discharged from his employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We agree. Substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that claimant participated in a fight during working hours and such participation was sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Kilgore [Triboro Coach Corp.—Sweeney], 227 AD2d 710; Matter of Redjepi [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 727, 728).

Cardona, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Peters, Spain 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 the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 5, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[887]*887Claimant was employed as a clerical worker for a heating oil delivery company when he became embroiled in a dispute with a co-worker and threatened him with a knife. As a result, claimant was discharged from his employment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found claimant to be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We agree. Substantial evidence in the record supports the finding that claimant participated in a fight during working hours and such participation was sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Kilgore [Triboro Coach Corp.—Sweeney], 227 AD2d 710; Matter of Redjepi [Hudacs], 210 AD2d 727, 728).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 886, 652 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-marcus-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack