In re the Claim of Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Santiago

69 A.D.3d 1090, 893 N.Y.2d 658

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1090 (In re the Claim of Santiago) 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 Santiago, 69 A.D.3d 1090, 893 N.Y.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant worked as a security guard at a museum beginning in September 2006. Following several incidents during which fellow employees perceived claimant’s behavior as hostile, claimant was given training and counseling, and was ultimately suspended. Finally, claimant was warned in writing that any further hostile or intimidating behavior towards fellow employees would be grounds for termination. Despite the warning, claimant threw a fake punch at a fellow employee and, as a result, his employment was terminated.' The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. The Board also charged claimant with a recoverable overpay[1091]*1091ment of benefits and assessed a forfeiture penalty of benefit days, finding that he had made a willful false statement to obtain benefits. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Contentious, violent or threatening behavior on the part of any employee toward a fellow employee in the workplace has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Mesagna [Commissioner of Labor], 59 AD3d 801 [2009]; Matter of Reyna-Bautista [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1102, 1102-1103 [2007]). Here, claimant readily admitted both that he had been warned about his behavior and that he threw the fake punch at his fellow employee. As such, we find the Board’s decision to disqualify claimant from receiving benefits to be supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, claimant admitted that he indicated on his application for benefits that he had lost employment due to lack of work when, in reality, he had been terminated. Thus, the Board’s finding that he made a willful false statement was also supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Downing [Buffalo Hearing & Speech Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2008]).

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, 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 worked as a security guard at a museum beginning in September 2006. Following several incidents during which fellow employees perceived claimant’s behavior as hostile, claimant was given training and counseling, and was ultimately suspended. Finally, claimant was warned in writing that any further hostile or intimidating behavior towards fellow employees would be grounds for termination. Despite the warning, claimant threw a fake punch at a fellow employee and, as a result, his employment was terminated.' The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. The Board also charged claimant with a recoverable overpay[1091]*1091ment of benefits and assessed a forfeiture penalty of benefit days, finding that he had made a willful false statement to obtain benefits. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Contentious, violent or threatening behavior on the part of any employee toward a fellow employee in the workplace has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Mesagna [Commissioner of Labor], 59 AD3d 801 [2009]; Matter of Reyna-Bautista [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1102, 1102-1103 [2007]). Here, claimant readily admitted both that he had been warned about his behavior and that he threw the fake punch at his fellow employee. As such, we find the Board’s decision to disqualify claimant from receiving benefits to be supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, claimant admitted that he indicated on his application for benefits that he had lost employment due to lack of work when, in reality, he had been terminated. Thus, the Board’s finding that he made a willful false statement was also supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Downing [Buffalo Hearing & Speech Ctr. — Commissioner of Labor], 51 AD3d 1093, 1093-1094 [2008]).

Mercure, J.E, Spain, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 1090, 893 N.Y.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-santiago-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack