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 Luis A. LUGO, Appellant. Milford Management, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 28, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from his employment as a security guard for consuming alcohol during his lunch hour, having received prior warnings to refrain from such conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, reversing the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ), ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits on the basis that he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. Consuming alcohol while on the job has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Daly [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 614, 615, 663 N.Y.S.2d 707, 708). Given claimant's admission that he consumed alcohol during lunch on the day in question and the testimony of co-workers that after lunch claimant's words were slurred, he could not keep his balance and he was talking loudly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. While considerable weight is accorded to the credibility determinations of the ALJ, the Board is not bound thereby and is entitled to resolve issues of credibility differently than the ALJ (see, Matter of Di Donato [Hartnett], 176 A.D.2d 1102, 1103, 575 N.Y.S.2d 404). Claimant's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: June 04, 1998
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)