In re the Claim of Wray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Wray

268 A.D.2d 731, 700 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 731 (In re the Claim of Wray) 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 Wray, 268 A.D.2d 731, 700 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 15, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed June 29, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a presser at a laundry service company after the employer found that claimant had engaged in a physical altercation with another employee. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment due to misconduct. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered explanations for engaging in the altercation, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Nicolas [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 557). “Engaging in a physical assault during work hours may constitute disqualifying misconduct * * * regardless of who initiates the altercation or whether it results in criminal liability” (id., at 557 [citations omitted]).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 15, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed June 29, 1999, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.

Claimant was discharged from her employment as a presser at a laundry service company after the employer found that claimant had engaged in a physical altercation with another employee. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the ground that she lost her employment due to misconduct. Notwithstanding claimant’s proffered explanations for engaging in the altercation, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see, Matter of Nicolas [Commissioner of Labor], 254 AD2d 557). “Engaging in a physical assault during work hours may constitute disqualifying misconduct * * * regardless of who initiates the altercation or whether it results in criminal liability” (id., at 557 [citations omitted]).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 731, 700 N.Y.S.2d 771, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-wray-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack