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 Marybeth E. PLUCKHAN, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 7, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
When this matter was originally before us (245 A.D.2d 997, 667 N.Y.S.2d 79), we considered claimant's argument that she was improperly disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because the misconduct prompting her termination was caused by alcoholism. We noted that alcoholism may excuse what would otherwise be disqualifying misconduct if substantial evidence establishes that (1) claimant is an alcoholic, (2) the disease caused the misbehavior for which she was terminated, and (3) claimant was available for and capable of employment (see, Matter of Francis [New York City Human Resources Admin.-Ross], 56 N.Y.2d 600, 450 N.Y.S.2d 471, 435 N.E.2d 1086; Matter of Snell [General Motors Corp.-Hudacs], 195 A.D.2d 746, 747, 600 N.Y.S.2d 319; Matter of Moore [County of Monroe-Hartnett], 144 A.D.2d 123, 534 N.Y.S.2d 457). We found substantial evidence in the record establishing the first two elements but withheld decision and remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to determine whether claimant was available for and capable of employment.
After conducting further proceedings, the Board has found that claimant was available for and capable of work during the period in question and concluded that she should not be held ineligible for benefits due to unavailability or incapability. As we are now satisfied that claimant has met the three criteria for excusing the disqualifying misconduct, the Board's decision holding claimant ineligible for unemployment benefits is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.
ORDERED that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court's decision.
MIKOLL, J.P.
MERCURE, CREW III and YESAWICH Jr., JJ., concur.
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: December 30, 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)