You are here: / / After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying...

After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct

The Third Department determined that a fight with a co-employee after hours at a bar could constitute disqualifying misconduct if the fight was connected with claimant’s employment.  Because the Board, which granted unemployment benefits, based its determination on where the fight occurred, the matter was remitted:

“Fighting with a coworker, regardless of who initiates the confrontation, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” … . Claimant, moreover, was aware that the employer considered fighting to be a major infraction and that it could result in his termination. It is true that the fight occurred at a bar outside of work hours but, in that regard, a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits whenever his or her misconduct occurs “in connection with” his or her employment (Labor Law § 593 [3]…). Claimant was accordingly obliged, “even during his off-duty hours, to honor the standards of behavior which his employer has a right to expect of him and . . . he may be denied unemployment benefits as a result of misconduct in connection with his work if he fails to live up to this obligation” … . Therefore, the relevant question is not where or when the attack occurred, but whether it was connected to claimant’s employment … . Inasmuch as “the Board failed to address this relevant issue, its decision must be reversed and the matter remitted for further development of the record” … . Matter of Moniz (Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02534, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO FILE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT REQUIRED RESENTENCING DESPITE FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO INSTALL A GUARDRAIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FORMER AND CURRENT CLIENTS WOULD BE WITNESSES AT DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, ADD A PARTY TO THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING; APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Claimant Who Cannot Afford Child Care Is Unavailable for Work and Is Not Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits
NO JUSTIFICATION FOR FORCIBLE DETENTION, CONVICTION FOR ASSAULT OF ARRESTING OFFICER REVERSED.
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT, REVERSING SUPREME COURT, ADJUDICATED DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS ENABLING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS), STATUTORY PROCESS LEADING TO IMMIGRATION DETERMINATION BY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Questions of Fact Raised Whether Plaintiff’s Infant-Daughter’s Physical... Questions of Fact Whether Name Added to Bank Account Created a Convenience Account...