In re the Claim of Moss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Moss

39 A.D.3d 1057, 834 N.Y.S.2d 371

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

DecidedApril 19, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 1057 (In re the Claim of Moss) 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 Moss, 39 A.D.3d 1057, 834 N.Y.S.2d 371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 7, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a warehouse worker until he resigned in lieu of discharge after pulling a box cutter on his supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was discharged for misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Violent or threatening behavior by an employee has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of [1058]*1058Eisenstadt [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]; Matter of Allen [Commissioner of Labor], 5 AD3d 845, 846 [2004]; Matter of Santana [Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 564 [1999]). Claimant’s assertion that he did not pull the box cutter on his supervisor presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Mears [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 627, 627 [2003]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, 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 June 7, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a warehouse worker until he resigned in lieu of discharge after pulling a box cutter on his supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was discharged for misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Violent or threatening behavior by an employee has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of [1058]*1058Eisenstadt [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 764, 765 [2004]; Matter of Allen [Commissioner of Labor], 5 AD3d 845, 846 [2004]; Matter of Santana [Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 564 [1999]). Claimant’s assertion that he did not pull the box cutter on his supervisor presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Mears [Commissioner of Labor], 308 AD2d 627, 627 [2003]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 1057, 834 N.Y.S.2d 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-moss-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack