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 Angel M. DEPENA, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 15, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as the supervisor of a work crew by New York Restoration, a government-funded agency engaged in the restoration of public parks. Evidence presented at claimant's administrative hearing disclosed that he had became resentful when his paycheck was garnished to pay amounts he owed in child support. Blaming the employer for this perceived inequity, claimant's job performance suffered. Although warned to desist, claimant repeatedly failed to complete job assignments, disrupted the work of his fellow employees and, finally, threw his paycheck in the face of his supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant had lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. Employee behavior that is detrimental to the employer's interest and that persists despite repeated warnings has been construed as disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of McEnany [Sweeney], 216 A.D.2d 623, 627 N.Y.S.2d 178, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 707, 634 N.Y.S.2d 441, 658 N.E.2d 219; Matter of Smalling [Hartnett], 173 A.D.2d 1035, 570 N.Y.S.2d 372). We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ruling finding claimant guilty of disqualifying misconduct.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: April 02, 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)