IN RE: the Claim of Hanel HANSON

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of Hanel HANSON, Appellant. Boro Recycling Inc., Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: October 29, 1998

Before MIKOLL, J.P., and MERCURE, CREW, WHITE and SPAIN, JJ. Hanel Hanson, Maspeth, appellant in person. Dealy & Trachtman (Milo Silberstein of counsel), New York City, for Boro Recycling Inc., respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

 Claimant was discharged from his employment at a bottle recycling plant for allegedly participating in a scheme wherein deposit bottles were segregated and sold to a third party who would also claim a reimbursement for the return of the bottles.   Thereafter the parties entered into an agreement whereby claimant was rehired at a different location without back pay, but claimant became dissatisfied with the terms of the agreement.   An ensuing arbitration hearing, at which the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of claimant's misconduct, resulted in a finding that claimant served as a lookout while his co-workers segregated the bottles for the unauthorized transfers and, therefore, claimant was properly discharged.   The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, bound by the arbitrator's findings of fact (see, Matter of Obafemi [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 905, 672 N.Y.S.2d 506), concluded that claimant's actions constituted disqualifying misconduct.   We affirm.   Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant's act of assisting in misappropriating property rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct under the circumstances presented here (see, e.g., Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 A.D.2d 932, 666 N.Y.S.2d 858;  Matter of Dendy [Hartnett], 172 A.D.2d 936, 568 N.Y.S.2d 216).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Copied to clipboard