In re the Claim of Rimko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rimko

244 A.D.2d 695, 664 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11497

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 695 (In re the Claim of Rimko) 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 Rimko, 244 A.D.2d 695, 664 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11497 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 14, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a member of the Transport Workers Union, was employed as a maintenance worker by the New York City Transit Authority until his employment was terminated due to insubordination. The record discloses that claimant had refused to paint an office unless an air purifying respirator was provided. After a respirator was purchased specifically for claimant and he had been trained in its use, he again refused to accept the painting assignment on the ground that he did not know how to operate the respirator. Following his dismissal, an arbitration hearing was held resulting in a finding that claimant was guilty of insubordination and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted this conclusion, ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. The arbitrator’s factual findings regarding the events which led to claimant’s dismissal were binding upon the Board and this Court (see, Matter of Belilovsky [Hudacs], 181 AD2d 936, 937). Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that under the circumstances presented in this matter, claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Serrano [Shield of David—Sweeney], 216 AD2d 625).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 August 14, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a member of the Transport Workers Union, was employed as a maintenance worker by the New York City Transit Authority until his employment was terminated due to insubordination. The record discloses that claimant had refused to paint an office unless an air purifying respirator was provided. After a respirator was purchased specifically for claimant and he had been trained in its use, he again refused to accept the painting assignment on the ground that he did not know how to operate the respirator. Following his dismissal, an arbitration hearing was held resulting in a finding that claimant was guilty of insubordination and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted this conclusion, ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. The arbitrator’s factual findings regarding the events which led to claimant’s dismissal were binding upon the Board and this Court (see, Matter of Belilovsky [Hudacs], 181 AD2d 936, 937). Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that under the circumstances presented in this matter, claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Serrano [Shield of David—Sweeney], 216 AD2d 625).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 695, 664 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rimko-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack