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 Francis X. DOWNEY, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 2, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed March 9, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision.
Claimant, a postal worker who was scheduled to be terminated from his employment, entered into a last-chance agreement whereby his termination would be held in abeyance for two years provided that he satisfactorily complete a substance abuse program. The agreement specified that the original termination would be invoked in the event that claimant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. Claimant was terminated from his employment after he was removed from the substance abuse program for nonattendance. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm. The arbitrator's factual findings were properly given collateral estoppel effect in view of the fact that claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct issue at the arbitration hearing (see, Matter of Carter [New York City Dept. of Personnel-Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 777, 661 N.Y.S.2d 840, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 809, 670 N.Y.S.2d 403, 693 N.E.2d 750). Inasmuch as the arbitrator found that claimant failed to comply with the terms of the last-chance agreement despite his knowledge that such conduct would lead to his termination, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's decisions (see, Matter of Kilgore [Triboro Coach Corp.-Sweeney], 227 A.D.2d 710, 641 N.Y.S.2d 648). We have reviewed claimant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decisions are 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 09, 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)