You are here: / Unemployment Insurance

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

 

Claimant’s Non-Work-Related Felony Deemed to Breach Express or Implied Duty Owed to Employer

The Third Department determined claimant was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because of an act constituting a felony which took place at the claimant’s home, not at work, but which generated negative publicity, breaching a duty owed to the employer (a car dealership).  The Third Department wrote:

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his “employment as a result of an act constituting a felony in connection with such employment” (Labor Law § 593; see Labor Law§  597). Claimant, a car salesperson, was fired after his arrest on charges stemming from, among other things, his surreptitious videotaping of individuals who used the bathroom of his home. The charges, which generated negative publicity and numerous customer complaints, ultimately were resolved when claimant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful surveillance in the second degree. Given the public nature of claimant’s position and the detrimental effect his continued employment could have had upon the employer’s business, the Board properly determined that claimant’s actions constituted a breach of  an  express  or implied duty owed to the employer… Matter of Engel [Commissioner of Labor], 515513, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

 

 

Claimant Not Entitled to Benefits For Time Spent Working Out of House 

After claimant was laid off, he operated a business [Hatch Ventures] periodically out of his home.  The Third Department determined the claimant was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits for the days he operated his business but that “recoverable overpayment and forfeiture penalty” should not be imposed because claimant did not make a willful misrepresentation with respect to his home business:

A claimant is not entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits during the time that he or she  is not  totally unemployed (see Labor Law § 591 [1]).It has  been  held that a claimant who undertakes activities on behalf of an ongoing business is not considered to be totally unemployed even if those activities are minimal  or the business is not  profitable ….   The issue of total unemployment is a factual question for the Board, and  its determination will be  upheld  if supported by  substantial evidence….   Here, claimant admittedly performed various activities on behalf of Hatch Ventures, made business-related expenditures and received income from product sales. Notably, he  indicated that, from  June 1, 2011  until June  30, 2011, he  performed  such  activities three days  a  week  for one  hour  each  day  and  that, after July 1, 2011, he performed them one day per week for three hours.  Matter of Lewis [Copmmissioner of Labor], 515345, 3rd Dept, 5-16-13

 

 

Reasons for Refusal of Temporary Job Not Sufficient; Claimant Disqualified

The Third Department upheld the disqualification of an unemployment-insurance claimant who refused a temporary job offer because the pay was lower than at his previous temporary job and a 20-mile commute was required:

“A claimant who  refuses to accept a job for which  he  or she is reasonably suited by  training and  experience will be  disqualified from receiving unemployment  insurance benefits” ….   Here, the record confirms that claimant was  qualified for the job offered to him  and  the position paid the prevailing wage ….   As for claimant’s rejection of the job offer due  to its location, “dissatisfaction with the length of one’s commute does not constitute good cause for rejecting an otherwise  suitable  offer of  employment”  … Notably, claimant admitted receiving the unemployment  insurance handbook explaining his obligations regarding reasonable commuting  distances under these circumstances.  Matter of Neuman, 509590, 3rd Dept, 4-18-13

 

 

Claimant, Who Had Been Diagnosed With Job-Related Stress, Did Not Have Good Cause to Resign

After a doctor diagnosed claimant with job-related stress and authorized a month’s leave from work, claimant resigned from his job.  The Third Department affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s finding claimant was not eligible for unemployment insurance on the ground he left his employment without good cause:

It is well settled that general dissatisfaction with a job or the inability to get along with a supervisor does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment … .   Here, claimant expressed extreme displeasure with his work environment as well as the demeanor of his supervisor, which undoubtedly contributed to the stress he was experiencing. While his physician provided him with a note setting forth medical reasons justifying a  leave of  absence,  claimant  did  not receive medical advice to quit his job … .   Moreover, although claimant  cited safety concerns  as another  reason  for his leaving, his supervisor testified that he  accepted  claimant’s suggestions concerning  the  operation  of the  machinery  and  did  not  have  him engage in potentially dangerous work practices. Matter of Bielak v Commissioner of Labor, 514536, 3rd Dept, 4-18-13

 

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