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 Andrzej LYCZEK, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 26, 2000, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from his employment as a maintenance worker and concierge for a condominium complex for willfully neglecting his duties despite having been previously warned about his work performance. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals and we affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct. It is well settled that the failure to comply with a reasonable request of the employer may constitute misconduct (see, Matter of Pierro [John L. Gwydir Co.-Commissioner of Labor], 280 A.D.2d 750, 721 N.Y.S.2d 119; Matter of Hart [Commissioner of Labor], 275 A.D.2d 832, 713 N.Y.S.2d 103). Here, the record reveals that claimant was instructed to clean up after construction in a particular area of the condominium complex and did not do so or offer any explanation for his failure to comply with his supervisor's instructions. To the extent that claimant testified that he did clean the area, this presented a credibility issue which the Board resolved against him (see, Matter of Frazier [Commissioner of Labor], 273 A.D.2d 676, 711 N.Y.S.2d 345). Claimant's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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 12, 2001
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)