In re the Claim of Rios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rios

228 A.D.2d 760, 643 N.Y.2d 723, 643 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6450

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 760 (In re the Claim of Rios) 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 Rios, 228 A.D.2d 760, 643 N.Y.2d 723, 643 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant was employed by a bus company. He was discharged from his position for smoking marihuana on his employer’s premises. The Board denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant challenges the Board’s decision, arguing that it is not supported by substantial evi[761]*761dence. We disagree. An individual hired by the employer to investigate drug use in the workplace testified that he was familiar with marihuana and observed claimant and another employee roll a marihuana cigarette in the locker room and step outside to smoke it. Although claimant testified that he never smoked marihuana on his employer’s premises, this conflicting testimony merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Chen [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 812). Accordingly, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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

Claimant was employed by a bus company. He was discharged from his position for smoking marihuana on his employer’s premises. The Board denied claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant challenges the Board’s decision, arguing that it is not supported by substantial evi[761]*761dence. We disagree. An individual hired by the employer to investigate drug use in the workplace testified that he was familiar with marihuana and observed claimant and another employee roll a marihuana cigarette in the locker room and step outside to smoke it. Although claimant testified that he never smoked marihuana on his employer’s premises, this conflicting testimony merely presented a question of credibility for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Chen [Hudacs], 188 AD2d 812). Accordingly, we find that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 760, 643 N.Y.2d 723, 643 N.Y.S.2d 723, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rios-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack