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 Leslie LUBIN, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 9, 1996, which, upon reconsideration, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as a platform conductor by the New York City Transit Authority when he was discharged for repeatedly striking a passenger on the hand with a flashlight, in violation of the employer's rules that prohibit employees from striking passengers under any circumstances. The passenger in question was an out-of-State tourist who had inserted her arm between the subway car's doors in an attempt to reopen them after they had slammed shut when she boarded the car, leaving her minor son unattended on the platform. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. Engaging in a physical assault in the course of one's employment has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Matter of Graham [New York State Elec. & JGas Corp.-Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 660, 649 N.Y.S.2d 743; Matter of Perry [Sweeney], 222 A.D.2d 924, 635 N.Y.S.2d 364) as has the knowing violation of an employer's rules or policy (see, Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board's ruling. The discrepancy between claimant's testimony regarding the incidents in question and that of the complainant raised issues of credibility which were within the province of the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Thompson [Hudacs], 210 A.D.2d 614, 615, 619 N.Y.S.2d 863). 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: November 20, 1997
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)