In re the Claim of Vega

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Vega

168 A.D.2d 727, 564 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14792

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 A.D.2d 727 (In re the Claim of Vega) 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 Vega, 168 A.D.2d 727, 564 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 19, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Although claimant does not remember making the telephone call wherein he used abusive language to his supervisor’s wife and threatened his supervisor, claimant’s own testimony and his admission in his brief that he made "one unfortunate call” supports the conclusion that he did make the call. Also, while he argues to the contrary, claimant knew from his suspension notice that any such conduct could result in his termination; as such, the determination that this constituted misconduct warranting claimant’s disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Levick [Ross], 53 AD2d 950, appeal dismissed 42 NY2d 909, lv denied 42 NY2d 811; cf., Matter of Marquez [Roberts] 107 AD2d 959, 960). In addition, the record fails to support claimant’s contention that the lack of an interpreter denied him due process (see, Matter of Rosado [Levine] 49 AD2d 782) and, in fact, it is clear from claimant’s testimony that he understood why he was terminated.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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 March 19, 1990, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Although claimant does not remember making the telephone call wherein he used abusive language to his supervisor’s wife and threatened his supervisor, claimant’s own testimony and his admission in his brief that he made "one unfortunate call” supports the conclusion that he did make the call. Also, while he argues to the contrary, claimant knew from his suspension notice that any such conduct could result in his termination; as such, the determination that this constituted misconduct warranting claimant’s disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Levick [Ross], 53 AD2d 950, appeal dismissed 42 NY2d 909, lv denied 42 NY2d 811; cf., Matter of Marquez [Roberts] 107 AD2d 959, 960). In addition, the record fails to support claimant’s contention that the lack of an interpreter denied him due process (see, Matter of Rosado [Levine] 49 AD2d 782) and, in fact, it is clear from claimant’s testimony that he understood why he was terminated.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 727, 564 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-vega-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack