In re the Claim of Nash

35 A.D.3d 939, 824 N.Y.S.2d 805

This text of 35 A.D.3d 939 (In re the Claim of Nash) 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 Nash, 35 A.D.3d 939, 824 N.Y.S.2d 805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

[940]*940Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 10, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a probationary police officer after he made a false statement to his employer. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated for engaging in disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. During an investigation into allegations that he was dealing drugs, claimant was questioned about a prior arrest for drug possession. Although claimant told investigators that he had not sold drugs and had possessed only three bags of marihuana, testimony of investigating officers and the police report made at the time of the arrest established that the arresting officer had witnessed a hand-to-hand sale and that 16 bags of marihuana were recovered from claimant’s possession. Based on his dishonest response, the Board’s determination that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jung-Szayer [Commissioner of Labor], 21 AD3d 1173, 1174 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 706 [2006]; Matter of Goulbourne [Commissioner of Labor], 18 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2005]; Matter of Bishop [New York City Human Resources Admin.—Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 924, 924 [2001]).

Claimant’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and determined to be without merit.

Mercure, J.E, Peters, 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

In re the Claim of Goulbourne
18 A.D.3d 1087 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Jung-Szayer
21 A.D.3d 1173 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Bishop
282 A.D.2d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 A.D.3d 939, 824 N.Y.S.2d 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-nash-nyappdiv-2006.