In re the Claim of Valentin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Valentin

258 A.D.2d 908, 684 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D.2d 908 (In re the Claim of Valentin) 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 Valentin, 258 A.D.2d 908, 684 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 10, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a porter, was instructed by his supervisor not to permit a certain co-worker who had recently been fired into the locker room to remove his belongings unless the supervisor was present as there were suspicions as to why the co-worker had occupied four lockers. Thereafter, claimant was discharged for disregarding the supervisor’s instructions. Contrary to claimant’s contention, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Velazquez [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 928). Although claimant denied having let the co-worker into the locker room, a security guard testified that he witnessed claimant open the locker room door for the co-worker. Moreover, claimant made no attempt to contact his supervisor while the co-worker was on the premises. Any conflict in the testimony merely presented [909]*909a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Burger [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 953). Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and granting the employer’s application to reopen the case, especially where, as here, the employer’s application was prompt and it offered a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear at the initial hearing.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, 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 10, 1998, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a porter, was instructed by his supervisor not to permit a certain co-worker who had recently been fired into the locker room to remove his belongings unless the supervisor was present as there were suspicions as to why the co-worker had occupied four lockers. Thereafter, claimant was discharged for disregarding the supervisor’s instructions. Contrary to claimant’s contention, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Velazquez [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 928). Although claimant denied having let the co-worker into the locker room, a security guard testified that he witnessed claimant open the locker room door for the co-worker. Moreover, claimant made no attempt to contact his supervisor while the co-worker was on the premises. Any conflict in the testimony merely presented [909]*909a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Burger [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 953). Furthermore, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and granting the employer’s application to reopen the case, especially where, as here, the employer’s application was prompt and it offered a reasonable excuse for its failure to appear at the initial hearing.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D.2d 908, 684 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-valentin-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack