In re the Claim of Montanye

10 A.D.3d 830, 782 N.Y.S.2d 137, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11183
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 30, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 830 (In re the Claim of Montanye) 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 Montanye, 10 A.D.3d 830, 782 N.Y.S.2d 137, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[831]*831Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 26, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a machine operator for the employer until she was terminated in February 2003. Her termination followed a meeting at which she became loud and disruptive, and accused her superiors of lying. Her claim for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that she lost her employment through misconduct and this determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and later the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. It is well settled that an employee’s insubordinate and disrespectful behavior toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Pagan [Haig Press— Commissioner of Labor], 305 AD2d 845 [2003]; Matter of Puente [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 555, 555 [2000], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 896 [2000]). Claimant’s supervisor testified to claimant’s inappropriate and abusive comments during the meeting that culminated in the decision to discharge her. There is nothing to suggest that claimant’s filing of a prior sexual harassment complaint had anything to do with her termination. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Spain, J.P., Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Matter of Salcedo (E.H. Mfg. Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)
2019 NY Slip Op 3125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
In re the Claim of Morar
86 A.D.3d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Teixeira
69 A.D.3d 1285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re the Claim of Parker
67 A.D.3d 1235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Houston
65 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Claim of Segarra
45 A.D.3d 1146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Claim of Piervencenti
39 A.D.3d 1108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re Naylor
24 A.D.3d 1154 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Terry
23 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Sona
13 A.D.3d 799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 A.D.3d 830, 782 N.Y.S.2d 137, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-montanye-nyappdiv-2004.