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 J.D. SMITH Jr., Respondent. New Venture Gear Inc., Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 16, 1999, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant was discharged from his employment as a stock chaser for allegedly assaulting a co-worker. Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge overruled the initial determination and ruled that claimant did not engage in disqualifying misconduct because he did not initiate the altercation and responded only to defend himself. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision finding that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits and the employer appeals.
We affirm. “Misconduct presents a factual issue for resolution by the Board, whose decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Padilla [Sephardic Home for the Aged-Roberts], 113 A.D.2d 997, 997, 493 N.Y.S.2d 671). Here, claimant testified that his co-worker initiated the physical confrontation and that he pushed the co-worker in order to protect himself. Inasmuch as the employer failed to produce the testimony of the co-worker, who still was in its employ, or the other employees who allegedly witnessed the incident, it was not improvident for the Board to resolve credibility issues in claimant's favor (see, Matter of Berry [E.J. Noble Hosp./Samaritan Med. Ctr.-Commissioner of Labor], 264 A.D.2d 923, 695 N.Y.S.2d 209). Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's ruling that claimant did not lose his employment due to disqualifying misconduct and was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits (cf., Matter of White [Commissioner of Labor], 268 A.D.2d 643, 700 N.Y.S.2d 601; Matter of Love [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 674, 670 N.Y.S.2d 984).
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: December 14, 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)