In re the Claim of Teixeira

69 A.D.3d 1285, 895 N.Y.2d 544
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 1285 (In re the Claim of Teixeira) 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 Teixeira, 69 A.D.3d 1285, 895 N.Y.2d 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Claimant worked as a unit secretary at an outpatient dialysis facility. In December 2007, while claimant was being counseled for defacing a patient’s treatment sheet, she became disruptive and began yelling at her supervisor. Claimant was subsequently discharged and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “It is well settled that an employee’s insubordinate and disrespectful behavior toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Montanye [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 830, 831 [2004] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Segarra [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d 1146, 1146 [2007]). Here, claimant’s supervisor, her union representative and an assistant manager were all present at the counseling and testified that claimant became agitated, stood up and began yelling and gesturing at her supervisor before abruptly leaving the office. In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that claimant was terminated for misconduct (see Matter of Musac [Commissioner of Labor], 50 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2008]; Matter of Segarra [Commissioner of Labor], 45 AD3d at 1146). To the extent that claimant’s testimony concerning her behavior differed from that of the other witnesses, a credibility determination was created for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Auguste [Commissioner of Labor], 61 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2009]).

[1286]*1286Mercure, J.E, Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, 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

Related

In re the Claim of Brown
83 A.D.3d 1231 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Claim of Irons
79 A.D.3d 1511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 A.D.3d 1285, 895 N.Y.2d 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-teixeira-nyappdiv-2010.