In re the Claim of Taryn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Taryn

284 A.D.2d 642, 725 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5978

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

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 642 (In re the Claim of Taryn) 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 Taryn, 284 A.D.2d 642, 725 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 19, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[643]*643Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her job at a retail store due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant refused to obey her supervisor’s order to work in the stock room. It is well settled that an employee’s failure to accept a reasonable work assignment may constitute insubordination rising to the level of misconduct (see, Matter of Jackson [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 826, lv denied 95 NY2d 769), especially where, as here, claimant had been previously warned about her insubordinate conduct (see, Matter of Sanderson [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 844). We have reviewed claimant’s contention that the Administrative Law Judge discouraged her from obtaining counsel and calling witnesses and find it to be without merit.

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin 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 July 19, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

[643]*643Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her job at a retail store due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant refused to obey her supervisor’s order to work in the stock room. It is well settled that an employee’s failure to accept a reasonable work assignment may constitute insubordination rising to the level of misconduct (see, Matter of Jackson [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 826, lv denied 95 NY2d 769), especially where, as here, claimant had been previously warned about her insubordinate conduct (see, Matter of Sanderson [Commissioner of Labor], 275 AD2d 844). We have reviewed claimant’s contention that the Administrative Law Judge discouraged her from obtaining counsel and calling witnesses and find it to be without merit.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 642, 725 N.Y.S.2d 239, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-taryn-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack