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 Elaine V. DALEY, Appellant. Mount Sinai Hospital, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 17, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from her employment as a telephone operator after engaging in a heated argument with a coworker which disrupted the work in their department. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. Contentious or disruptive conduct in the workplace, regardless of who initiates it, may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Romano [Commissioner of Labor], 291 A.D.2d 776, 738 N.Y.S.2d 451 [2002]; Matter of Williams [National School Bus Serv.-Commissioner of Labor], 257 A.D.2d 839, 685 N.Y.S.2d 812 [1999] ). Furthermore, the record establishes that claimant had been warned about such conduct and advised by both the supervisor and the union to ignore the coworker and bring any problems to the supervisor's attention (see id.). Claimant's submission of a settlement agreement in her appellate brief is not properly before this Court, as it is not part of the record on appeal (see Matter of Smith [Commissioner of Labor], 296 A.D.2d 803, 804 n., 745 N.Y.S.2d 618 [2002] ) and would “not preclude the Board from determining the factual basis for claimant's discharge” (Matter of Pabon [Commissioner of Labor], 271 A.D.2d 800, 801, 706 N.Y.S.2d 206 [2000] ).
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: January 08, 2004
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)