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 Gordon J. WALLACE, Respondent. Pepsi-Cola Allied Bottlers Inc., Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 4, 1996, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant worked for the employer as a vending service route worker from February 3, 1996 until May 6, 1996. He was discharged from his position for poor work performance. Claimant was initially disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge overruled the initial determination and found that claimant was entitled to receive benefits. This decision was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The employer appeals.
We affirm. The issue of “[w]hether a claimant's actions have risen to the level of disqualification is a factual question for resolution by the Board” (Matter of Santa [Eastman Kodak Co.-Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 776, 654 N.Y.S.2d 52, 53; see, Matter of Jones [White Arrow Serv. Stations-Sweeney], 232 A.D.2d 802, 649 N.Y.S.2d 344). The employer's representatives testified that, despite numerous warnings, claimant repeatedly stocked the vending machines with expired products, allowed many of the machines to remain empty and failed to keep the machines and products clean, prompting the employer's customers to lodge complaints. When claimant was confronted with these problems, claimant responded that he was doing the best job that he could. Claimant testified that he was not provided the freshest products with which to stock the machines or with adequate support to service all of the machines for which he was responsible. Inasmuch as claimant's testimony negates the inference of intentional or willful misconduct, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decision (see, e.g., Matter of Hook [Manson News Distrib.-Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 731, 650 N.Y.S.2d 51; Matter of Beer [Pisem-Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 742, 650 N.Y.S.2d 357).
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: July 03, 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)