You are here: / / Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled...

Deputy Sheriff Fired for Incompetence and Insubordination Was Entitled to Unemployment Benefits

In upholding the finding that a former sheriff’s deputy was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, even though he was terminated for incompetence and insubordination, the Third Department noted that collateral estoppel applied to the factual findings in the Civil Service proceeding, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board could make its own determination whether the facts supported denial of unemployment benefits:

Given that claimant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the Civil Service Law § 75 hearing, the Board properly accorded collateral estoppel effect to the factual findings of the Hearing Officer… .  It was, however, incumbent upon the Board to draw its own conclusion as to whether such factual findings amounted to misconduct disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits….  Significantly, “[t]he  same conduct that leads to a claimant being discharged for cause may not necessarily rise to the level of misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes….  The Board’s decision in this regard will not  be  disturbed  if supported  by substantial evidence … . Matter of Guynup, 515235, 3rd Dept, 5-23-13

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT, IN HIS APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW, DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION SUBJECT TO BOARD REVIEW WAS MADE; THEREFORE THE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION (THIRD DEPT).
Although Title Had Not Yet Formally Passed to the Driver/Owner, the Vehicle Was Covered as a “Newly Acquired” Vehicle Under the Terms of the Policy
Claimant Delivery Driver Was an Employee of Partsfleet Despite Fact that Claimant Was Paid by Another Company (SCI) With Which Partsfleet Had a Contract
FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DSS) TO COMMENCE A NEGLECT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
ACCEPTING A VERDICT BEFORE REQUESTED TESTIMONY WAS READ BACK TO THE JURY WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR REVIEW.
DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER OF FILIATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
CLAIMANT DID NOT TRY TO HIDE THE DOG-WALKING BUSINESS AND WAS ONLY TANGENTIALLY INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION SHE HAD MADE A MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENT IN HER CLAIM FOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS STEMMING FROM HER FORMER EMPLOYMENT AS A BARTENDER (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE CLAIMANT’S SIGNING A STIPULATION AGREEING TO RESIGN, A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT PROVIDED GOOD CAUSE FOR HER RESIGNATION 3RD 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

Doctrine of Continuous Representation/Retainer Agreement in Estate Proceeding... Respondent Failed to Demonstrate Insertion of Feeding Tube Would Impose an “Extraordinary...