In re the Claim of Walli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Walli

275 A.D.2d 845, 713 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 845 (In re the Claim of Walli) 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 Walli, 275 A.D.2d 845, 713 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 23, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as cardiac [846]*846technician after an acrimonious telephone call to her manager complaining about her receipt of a written warning for failure to follow proper call-in procedures. In the course of the conversation, claimant threatened to sue the manager and the employer. Claimant had previously been warned about unprofessional and insubordinate behavior. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct.

We affirm. The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s ruling that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct. The proof indicates that she was insubordinate and verbally abusive to her manager (see, Matter of Marquez [New York City Dept. of Personnel—Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 926; Matter of Cuevas [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 718). Although claimant asserts that she was being harassed by the employer and denies speaking to her manager in a loud or abusive fashion, the contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Bradley [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 649). Finally, while claimant maintains that all disputes have been settled between her and the employer, the existence of such an agreement would not preclude the Board from determining the factual basis for claimant’s discharge (see, Matter of Caplan [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 660).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, 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 March 23, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as cardiac [846]*846technician after an acrimonious telephone call to her manager complaining about her receipt of a written warning for failure to follow proper call-in procedures. In the course of the conversation, claimant threatened to sue the manager and the employer. Claimant had previously been warned about unprofessional and insubordinate behavior. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct.

We affirm. The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s ruling that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct. The proof indicates that she was insubordinate and verbally abusive to her manager (see, Matter of Marquez [New York City Dept. of Personnel—Commissioner of Labor], 263 AD2d 926; Matter of Cuevas [Sweeney], 246 AD2d 718). Although claimant asserts that she was being harassed by the employer and denies speaking to her manager in a loud or abusive fashion, the contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Bradley [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 649). Finally, while claimant maintains that all disputes have been settled between her and the employer, the existence of such an agreement would not preclude the Board from determining the factual basis for claimant’s discharge (see, Matter of Caplan [Sweeney], 238 AD2d 660).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 845, 713 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-walli-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack