In re the Claim of Bishop
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- In re the Claim of Mordukhayev (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Mordukhayev (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- New York State Department of Labor v. New York State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- In re the Claim of Nash (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- In re the Claim of Goulbourne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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 December 20, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant challenges a determination finding that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits after her employment as an institutional aide for the Human Services Department of the City of New York was terminated. Following an arbitration hearing pursuant to claimant’s collective bargaining agreement, it was determined that she had filed a false police report concerning an alleged physical altercation with her supervisor, that claimant used abusive language toward her supervisor and that she lied under oath in connection with the alleged altercation. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board appropriately gave collateral estoppel effect to the factual findings of the arbitrator as the record establishes that claimant was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of her misconduct at the arbitration hearing (see, Matter of Rolle [Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn. — Commissioner of Labor], 258 AD2d 871). Given claimant’s dishonest conduct, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that she engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Shuaib [Commissioner of Labor], 268 AD2d 744). Claimant’s remain
Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.