From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 30, 1993
196 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

September 30, 1993

Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.


Claimant was employed as an armed courier guard until he was discharged for refusing to accept a work assignment. According to the employer's vice-president, if the employer received additional assignments during the day employees were required, if requested, to stay and complete the extra work. Although claimant contended that he refused because he had to pick up his daughter, he admitted that he "did not say why specifically" he refused the assignment. In addition, the vice-president stated that claimant gave no reason for the refusal.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found, and there is substantial evidence to support its finding, that claimant was aware that it was his responsibility to perform such assignments, that he should have given a reason for his refusal and that his failure to do so constituted misconduct (see, Matter of Perloff [Ross], 59 A.D.2d 994; Matter of Azzu [Levine], 52 A.D.2d 661). To the extent that claimant's version of the circumstances surrounding his discharge differs from the employer's version, questions of fact and credibility were raised for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of De Cherro [Ross], 83 A.D.2d 709, lv denied 55 N.Y.2d 603).

Furthermore, as the Board pointed out, claimant had admittedly just been rehired after having informed the employer that he was leaving for Florida and did not know whether he would return. When he did return several days later the employer rehired claimant on probation. The vice-president stated that it was not the first time that claimant had "disappeared" for a few days. Thus, claimant's refusal could be considered the last act in a series of related events concerning the conduct leading to his discharge (see, Matter of Herwig [Ross], 68 A.D.2d 997, lv denied 48 N.Y.2d 606). Claimant's remaining arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive.

Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Crew III and White, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 30, 1993
196 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Perez

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ANGEL C. PEREZ, Appellant. JOHN F. HUDACS…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Sep 30, 1993

Citations

196 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 436

Citing Cases

Matter of Shkedy

The "final straw" leading to claimant's termination was when he left work after the employer's president…

Matter of Perez

Decided May 3, 1994 Appeal from (3d Dept: 196 A.D.2d 940) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…