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 Wanda REY-CALDERON, Appellant. Brookset Bus Corporation, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 20, 2007, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was a school bus dispatcher for the employer. On the day her employment ended, she had reported late to work and her supervisor gave her a verbal warning and a written acknowledgment of the verbal warning for her to sign. However, claimant refused to sign the written acknowledgment and she was discharged. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge determined that she had lost her employment due to misconduct and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed, prompting this appeal.
“The question of whether a claimant has engaged in disqualifying misconduct presents a factual issue for the Board to resolve and its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Williams [City of New York-Commissioner of Labor ], 47 A.D.3d 994, 994, 848 N.Y.S.2d 781 [2008] [citation omitted] ). We find that, based upon, among other things, the testimony of claimant that she had repeatedly refused to sign the warning and that a heated exchange had occurred regarding her refusal, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination (see Matter of Brown [Sweeney ], 243 A.D.2d 808, 808, 665 N.Y.S.2d 334 [1997]; Matter of Tietze [Hudacs ], 193 A.D.2d 1000, 1000, 598 N.Y.S.2d 114 [1993] ). The differing accounts of what transpired on the morning in question presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Kretchmer [Commissioner of Labor ], 8 A.D.3d 849, 850, 779 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2004] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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: March 05, 2009
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)