Matter of Pellicano (Commr. of Labor)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Pellicano (Commr. of Labor)

134 A.D.3d 1291, 19 N.Y.S.3d 921

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2015

Docket520974

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.D.3d 1291 (Matter of Pellicano (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 Pellicano (Commr. of Labor), 134 A.D.3d 1291, 19 N.Y.S.3d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 14, 2014, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a teaching assistant at a high school for a little over a year. Following an incident in which he allegedly failed to appropriately handle a fight among students in the fitness center, he was directed to attend a meeting with the school superintendent to discuss possible disciplinary sanctions. He did not attend the meeting and was terminated as a result. Claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied and the denial was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) following a hearing. The *1292 Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. He now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, the record does not support claimant’s contention that the ALJ improperly denied his request to have his wife testify at the hearing as he stated at the onset of the hearing that he did not have any witnesses (see Matter of Taylor [New York Tel Co. —Levine], 53 AD2d 772, 773 [1976]). Likewise, the ALJ did not improperly refuse to receive into evidence the police report of the student altercation as claimant did not offer it nor was it relevant to claimant’s termination (see Matter of Monroe [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 558, 559 [2000]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and are lacking in merit. Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, 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 July 14, 2014, which ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a teaching assistant at a high school for a little over a year. Following an incident in which he allegedly failed to appropriately handle a fight among students in the fitness center, he was directed to attend a meeting with the school superintendent to discuss possible disciplinary sanctions. He did not attend the meeting and was terminated as a result. Claimant’s application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied and the denial was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) following a hearing. The *1292 Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision and ruled, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. He now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, the record does not support claimant’s contention that the ALJ improperly denied his request to have his wife testify at the hearing as he stated at the onset of the hearing that he did not have any witnesses (see Matter of Taylor [New York Tel Co. —Levine], 53 AD2d 772, 773 [1976]). Likewise, the ALJ did not improperly refuse to receive into evidence the police report of the student altercation as claimant did not offer it nor was it relevant to claimant’s termination (see Matter of Monroe [Commissioner of Labor], 270 AD2d 558, 559 [2000]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been considered and are lacking in merit. Therefore, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 1291, 19 N.Y.S.3d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pellicano-commr-of-labor-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack