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 Syed M. Tariq SHUAIB, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 26, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Following an employee disciplinary hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, claimant was found guilty of, inter alia, submitting falsified or inaccurate documents to the employer in a scheme designed to cause parking tickets to be dismissed. Consequently, his employment as an assistant civil engineer was terminated. Based on these findings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was terminated for misconduct.
We affirm. The record reveals that claimant, who was represented by counsel, was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the disciplinary hearing. Inasmuch as this identical issue was before the Board, we find that the Board properly accorded collateral estoppel effect to these factual findings (see, Matter of Obafemi [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 905, 672 N.Y.S.2d 506; 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). Moreover, given the nature of claimant's conduct, we further find that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fox [Sweeney], 233 A.D.2d 645, 646, 649 N.Y.S.2d 748).
We have reviewed claimant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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: January 13, 2000
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)