In re the Claim of Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Shaw

302 A.D.2d 655, 753 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 870

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 655 (In re the Claim of Shaw) 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 Shaw, 302 A.D.2d 655, 753 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 24, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a receptionist due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that shortly after she was reprimanded for interrupting the training of a new employee, claimant became angry and threatened to put rat poison in the office water cooler. It is well settled that utterance of a threat to a supervisor or coworker can constitute misconduct (see Matter of Khan [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 651). Although claimant denied having made any threatening remarks, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Moore [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 857).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, 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 April 24, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a receptionist due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that shortly after she was reprimanded for interrupting the training of a new employee, claimant became angry and threatened to put rat poison in the office water cooler. It is well settled that utterance of a threat to a supervisor or coworker can constitute misconduct (see Matter of Khan [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 651). Although claimant denied having made any threatening remarks, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Moore [Commissioner of Labor], 282 AD2d 857).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 655, 753 N.Y.S.2d 772, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-shaw-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack