In re the Claim of Morar
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Evens (Commissioner of Labor) (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- In re the Claim of Pencola (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Barton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Aguasvivas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Aguasvivas (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Dit (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- In re the Claim of Dit (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
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
From June 2006 until April 2009, claimant worked for a realty management company as a porter in a residential apartment building. Claimant refused his supervisor’s request to mop up a spill on the third floor of the building which was part of his duties. He proceeded to engage in a loud verbal exchange with the supervisor, which resulted in the supervisor cleaning up the spill. Claimant, who had received previous warnings for unsatisfactory conduct, was terminated as a result. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. It is well settled that a claimant’s insubordinate and/or disrespectful behavior toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Setzer [Commissioner of Labor], 69 AD3d 1087, 1087 [2010]; Matter of Montanye [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 830 [2004]), particularly where the claimant has received prior warnings about similar behavior (see Matter of Musac [Commissioner of Labor], 50 AD3d 1428, 1428 [2008]). Here, both claimant’s supervisor and a handyman who was present during the exchange stated that
Peters, J.P., Rose, Malone Jr., Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.