Matter of Coleman (Commr. of Labor)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Coleman (Commr. of Labor)

126 A.D.3d 1223, 3 N.Y.S.3d 642

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2015

Docket519487

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 1223 (Matter of Coleman (Commr. of Labor)) 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

Matter of Coleman (Commr. of Labor), 126 A.D.3d 1223, 3 N.Y.S.3d 642 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 6, 2013, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a hotel housekeeper due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant and a coworker had a verbal dispute, during which claimant threatened the coworker with physical harm. It is well settled that threats against a coworker can constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 1185, 1185 [2012]; Matter of Messado [City of New York— Commissioner of Labor], 76 AD3d 740, 741 [2010]; Matter of Ponce [Commissioner of Labor], 75 AD3d 1041, 1041 [2010]). Although claimant asserts that her actions were just idle threats in response to the coworker’s use of a racially derogatory remark toward her, the record establishes that, following the argument, claimant took overt steps to follow through with the threat of physical harm. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Furthermore, the record supports the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements when applying for unemployment insurance benefits as the record establishes that claimant was aware of the employer’s policy that threatening and hostile behavior toward coworkers was prohibited (see Matter of Brauneisen [GEICO Ins. Co. —Commissioner of Labor], 72 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2010]).

*1224 Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Lynch, 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 December 6, 2013, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a hotel housekeeper due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant and a coworker had a verbal dispute, during which claimant threatened the coworker with physical harm. It is well settled that threats against a coworker can constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 1185, 1185 [2012]; Matter of Messado [City of New York— Commissioner of Labor], 76 AD3d 740, 741 [2010]; Matter of Ponce [Commissioner of Labor], 75 AD3d 1041, 1041 [2010]). Although claimant asserts that her actions were just idle threats in response to the coworker’s use of a racially derogatory remark toward her, the record establishes that, following the argument, claimant took overt steps to follow through with the threat of physical harm. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Furthermore, the record supports the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements when applying for unemployment insurance benefits as the record establishes that claimant was aware of the employer’s policy that threatening and hostile behavior toward coworkers was prohibited (see Matter of Brauneisen [GEICO Ins. Co. —Commissioner of Labor], 72 AD3d 1381, 1382 [2010]).

*1224 Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 1223, 3 N.Y.S.3d 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-coleman-commr-of-labor-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack