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: Daniel T. NAYLOR, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 9, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a driver for a mail delivery contractor. After claimant received the employer's approval to take a Saturday off and arranged to have another person work his shift, the employer's owner advised him that he wanted a different individual to cover claimant's shift. An argument ensued, during which claimant got into his delivery truck and drove away while the owner was talking to him. Claimant subsequently was terminated and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, among other things, disqualified claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employment due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. It is well settled that insubordinate and disrespectful conduct toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Sona [Commissioner of Labor], 13 A.D.3d 799, 800, 785 N.Y.S.2d 617 [2004]; Matter of Montanye [Commissioner of Labor], 10 A.D.3d 830, 831, 782 N.Y.S.2d 137 [2004] ). Here, claimant admitted that he may have used inappropriate language while arguing with the owner and that he drove off while the owner was speaking to him because he did not want to get involved in a confrontation. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 29, 2005
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)