In re the Claim of ShabazzAllah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of ShabazzAllah

247 A.D.2d 749, 669 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1560

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 749 (In re the Claim of ShabazzAllah) 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 ShabazzAllah, 247 A.D.2d 749, 669 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 30, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a security guard after an incident wherein he directed obscene and angry language at another employee and then twice refused his supervisor’s orders to file an incident report in regard thereto. We affirm the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. This Court has held that an employee’s disrespectful conduct and vulgar language may constitute [750]*750disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Schneider [Garden City Union Free School Dist. — Hudacs], 201 AD2d 811) as has the refusal to comply with a supervisor’s reasonable request (see, Matter of Talyansky [Magna Prods. Corp. — Sweeney], 236 AD2d 728, lv denied 90 NY2d 806). Claimant’s assertion that his discharge was motivated by the employer’s bias against him due to his Islamic religious practices, created an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, id.). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct and that he made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits, having stated on his application that his employment was discontinued due to “lack of work”.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, 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 May 30, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his position as a security guard after an incident wherein he directed obscene and angry language at another employee and then twice refused his supervisor’s orders to file an incident report in regard thereto. We affirm the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. This Court has held that an employee’s disrespectful conduct and vulgar language may constitute [750]*750disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Schneider [Garden City Union Free School Dist. — Hudacs], 201 AD2d 811) as has the refusal to comply with a supervisor’s reasonable request (see, Matter of Talyansky [Magna Prods. Corp. — Sweeney], 236 AD2d 728, lv denied 90 NY2d 806). Claimant’s assertion that his discharge was motivated by the employer’s bias against him due to his Islamic religious practices, created an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, id.). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s ruling that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct and that he made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits, having stated on his application that his employment was discontinued due to “lack of work”.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 749, 669 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-shabazzallah-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack