Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Wilfred HOLDER, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 27, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
The credible evidence establishes that claimant, an unarmed security guard, was discharged from his employment after he reported to work under the influence of alcohol. “It is well settled that absent a showing that an employee is suffering from alcoholism, reporting to work under the influence of alcohol may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Kiteta [Commissioner of Labor], 4 A.D.3d 712, 713, 771 N.Y.S.2d 917 [2004] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Stuber [Commissioner of Labor], 32 A.D.3d 1063, 1063-1064, 820 N.Y.S.2d 663 [2006]; Matter of Kryszak [Commissioner of Labor], 308 A.D.2d 645, 646, 764 N.Y.S.2d 370 [2003] ). No such showing was made here. Although claimant contended that his slurred speech on the night in question was the product of medication he was taking, he conceded at the hearing that he provided no such explanation to the employer prior to his discharge and, further, failed to deny the employer's repeated allegations of intoxication. Moreover, his belated explanations or denials presented a credibility issue for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to resolve (see Matter of Kiteta [Commissioner of Labor], 4 A.D.3d at 713, 771 N.Y.S.2d 917).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 27, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)