In re the Claim of Rodrigues

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Rodrigues

16 A.D.2d 1003, 229 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082

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

DecidedJune 21, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 1003 (In re the Claim of Rodrigues) 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 Rodrigues, 16 A.D.2d 1003, 229 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which held claimant disqualified from receiving benefits. Claimant’s duties as a stockman in a department store during a rush season included that of assisting in the prompt movement of stock from the warehouse to the selling floors, but he twice refused his supervisor’s instructions to assist a temporary employee, described as a “ young lad who wasn’t too strong ”, who was having difficulty in wheeling stock up a ramp. Claimant had on two prior occasions been warned of the consequences of his failure to obey instructions and, indeed, on the second occasion, some months before, the employer had imposed upon him a “ disciplinary layoff ” for one week “ for insubordination and for profanity toward his supervisor” and had given him “a final warning”. The board could and did properly find that claimant provoked his discharge and thus voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause. (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a]; Matter of Ianni [Catherwood], 14 A D 469; Matter of Karman [Lubin], 2 A D 2d 626; see Matter of Caruso [Catherwood], 16 A D 2d 1008.) Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

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 which held claimant disqualified from receiving benefits. Claimant’s duties as a stockman in a department store during a rush season included that of assisting in the prompt movement of stock from the warehouse to the selling floors, but he twice refused his supervisor’s instructions to assist a temporary employee, described as a “ young lad who wasn’t too strong ”, who was having difficulty in wheeling stock up a ramp. Claimant had on two prior occasions been warned of the consequences of his failure to obey instructions and, indeed, on the second occasion, some months before, the employer had imposed upon him a “ disciplinary layoff ” for one week “ for insubordination and for profanity toward his supervisor” and had given him “a final warning”. The board could and did properly find that claimant provoked his discharge and thus voluntarily separated from his employment without good cause. (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a]; Matter of Ianni [Catherwood], 14 A D 469; Matter of Karman [Lubin], 2 A D 2d 626; see Matter of Caruso [Catherwood], 16 A D 2d 1008.) Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 1003, 229 N.Y.S.2d 270, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-rodrigues-nyappdiv-1962.