In re the Claim of Matolka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Matolka

252 A.D.2d 697, 675 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8164

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 697 (In re the Claim of Matolka) 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 Matolka, 252 A.D.2d 697, 675 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 3, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a sales associate at a retail photography store. During the final months of his employment, claimant and a female co-worker were having difficulty resolving a personal issue, as a result of which claimant threatened to slap the co-worker and engaged in a physical altercation with her husband in the store parking lot. Although repeatedly warned that continued personal contact with the co-worker would result in his termination, claimant nonetheless confronted the co-worker after the police arrived at the store to investigate her harassment complaint. Claimant then was terminated from his employment, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that he lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. Harassment or other unwelcomed personal contact with a coworker that continues despite repeated warnings is detrimental to the employer’s interest and has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Agis [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 819; see also, Matter of Schiffke [Hudacs], 189 AD2d 949). Based upon our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct.

Crew III, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Graffeo, 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 July 3, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a sales associate at a retail photography store. During the final months of his employment, claimant and a female co-worker were having difficulty resolving a personal issue, as a result of which claimant threatened to slap the co-worker and engaged in a physical altercation with her husband in the store parking lot. Although repeatedly warned that continued personal contact with the co-worker would result in his termination, claimant nonetheless confronted the co-worker after the police arrived at the store to investigate her harassment complaint. Claimant then was terminated from his employment, and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that he lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. Harassment or other unwelcomed personal contact with a coworker that continues despite repeated warnings is detrimental to the employer’s interest and has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Agis [Sweeney], 242 AD2d 819; see also, Matter of Schiffke [Hudacs], 189 AD2d 949). Based upon our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D.2d 697, 675 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-matolka-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack