In re the Claim of Ramos

306 A.D.2d 791, 761 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7476
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 26, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 791 (In re the Claim of Ramos) 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 Ramos, 306 A.D.2d 791, 761 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 29, 2002, 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 shop mechanic after he threatened his supervisor in the course of an argument by suggesting that they step outside and settle their differences “once and for all.” The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he had been discharged due to disqualifying misconduct.

The utterance of a threat to a supervisor may disqualify a claimant from the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Shaw [S’il Vous Plait Message Mgt. Ctr.— Commissioner of Labor], 302 AD2d 655 [2003]; Matter of Hawana [New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Serv.— Commissioner of Labor], 285 AD2d 800, 801 [2001]). In the matter under review, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that claimant was fired because he threatened his supervisor. We note that claimant denies that he uttered the words that led to his discharge and contends that his supervisor merely invented this incident as a pretext to fire him in retaliation for his having filed a discrimination complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. However, this assertion raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power (see Matter of Moore [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 857 [2001]; Matter of Pabon [Commissioner of Labor], 271 AD2d 800, 801 [2000]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, 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 Grace
69 A.D.3d 1156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
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 Spencer
22 A.D.3d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Wynne
16 A.D.3d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Claim of Bucolo
6 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Allen
5 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
306 A.D.2d 791, 761 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-ramos-nyappdiv-2003.