In re the Claim of Lambert
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Evens (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- MatterofJackson[Commr.ofLabor] (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Jackson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- In re the Claim of Vacchio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Vacchio (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- In re the Claim of Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- In re the Claim of Miles (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- In re the Claim of Piervencenti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re the Claim of Coon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- In re the Claim of Melendez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
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 June 23, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a custodian for a school district for 10 years. He was terminated from his position after he refused to sign a weekly inspection report and threw the report at his supervisor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found, among other things, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. “It is well settled that failure to comply with a reasonable request of an employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Mercure [Commissioner of Labor], 27 AD3d 857, 857 [2006] [citations omitted]). Here, claimant refused to sign the report because he was concerned that his supervisor might write in comments, although he admitted that his signature was to acknowledge receipt of the report, not his agreement with its contents. In our view, this was not sufficient reason for claimant’s failure to accede to the employer’s reasonable request (see Matter of Guagliardo [Commissioner of Labor], 27 AD3d 866, 867 [2006]). Moreover, while claimant denied throwing the report at his supervisor, his assertion presented a credibility issue to be resolved by the Board in light of the contrary testimony (see Matter of Kretchmer [Commissioner of Labor], 8 AD3d 849, 850 [2004]). Inasmuch as there is substantial evidence indicating that claimant was discharged for insubordination, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision. We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing.
Mercure, J.E, Feters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.