In re the Claim of Stagno
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Caraballo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- In re the Claim of Puente (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- In re the Claim of Raum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Adeniji (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Raum (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Adeniji (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- In re the Claim of Cuevas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Sobhani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Hayes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Nicotra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Vindigni (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Tracy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- In re the Claim of Greene (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 12, 1996, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as a steel rule die maker. His employment was terminated after twice calling his supervisor a "fucking whore” in the course of a conversation regarding a rush order. Pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and claimant’s union, an arbitration hearing ensued which resulted in a finding that just cause existed for claimant’s discharge in view of both his current infraction and the fact that he had previously been discharged for referring to the plant manager as “Hitler”. Claimant had won reinstatement following the arbitration proceeding resulting from the previous incident with an admonishment by his union to discontinue such conduct. Following its review of the instant matter, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant had lost his employment due to misconduct, charging him with a recoverable overpayment. We affirm.
Mercure, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.