In re the Claim of Sweeny

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Sweeny

21 A.D.3d 1245, 801 N.Y.S.2d 164

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1245 (In re the Claim of Sweeny) 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 Sweeny, 21 A.D.3d 1245, 801 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 7, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

In May 2003, pursuant to a “last chance” employment agreement, claimant was discharged from his employment as a sanitation worker after testing positive for alcohol in his system at work. Following a hearing at which claimant alleged that he was an alcoholic, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. That determination was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and claimant now appeals.

“Alcoholism can excuse disqualifying misconduct if there is substantial evidence to show that an employee is an alcoholic, that the alcoholism caused the behavior leading to the employee’s discharge and that the employee was available for and capable of work” (Matter of Snell [General Motors Corp.— Hudacs], 195 AD2d 746, 747 [1993] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Moore [County of Monroe—Hartnett], 144 AD2d 123, 124 [1988]). While medical evidence is not necessary to prove that claimant suffered from alcoholism, there is nevertheless insufficient evidence in the record here of the “outward behavioral and physiological indicia of alcoholism” that is required to [1246]*1246excuse claimant’s misconduct (Matter of Moore [County of Monroe—Hartnett], supra at 124; see Matter of Francis [New York City Human Resources Admin.—Ross], 56 NY2d 600, 602 [1982]). Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 7, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

In May 2003, pursuant to a “last chance” employment agreement, claimant was discharged from his employment as a sanitation worker after testing positive for alcohol in his system at work. Following a hearing at which claimant alleged that he was an alcoholic, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. That determination was upheld by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and claimant now appeals.

“Alcoholism can excuse disqualifying misconduct if there is substantial evidence to show that an employee is an alcoholic, that the alcoholism caused the behavior leading to the employee’s discharge and that the employee was available for and capable of work” (Matter of Snell [General Motors Corp.— Hudacs], 195 AD2d 746, 747 [1993] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Moore [County of Monroe—Hartnett], 144 AD2d 123, 124 [1988]). While medical evidence is not necessary to prove that claimant suffered from alcoholism, there is nevertheless insufficient evidence in the record here of the “outward behavioral and physiological indicia of alcoholism” that is required to [1246]*1246excuse claimant’s misconduct (Matter of Moore [County of Monroe—Hartnett], supra at 124; see Matter of Francis [New York City Human Resources Admin.—Ross], 56 NY2d 600, 602 [1982]). Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1245, 801 N.Y.S.2d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-sweeny-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack