From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of the Claim of Caraballo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 12, 2002
297 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

91555

September 12, 2002.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 11, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Andrew J. Dick, Rochester, for appellant.

Anderson Law Firm, Rochester (Christopher S. Anderson of counsel), for Rochester Plating Works, Inc., respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant, who worked in the employer's shipping and receiving department, was discharged for disqualifying misconduct. According to the record, claimant became annoyed when his supervisor informed him that he had neglected to pack a box that was to be picked up by a customer. Claimant responded by uttering an obscenity and stating, "I don't care." When the employer's operations manager, having witnessed this confrontation, asked claimant to repeat his statement, claimant did so, adding that he did not care because he was not being paid what he was worth.

This Court has held that an employee's use of offensive language or engaging in disrespectful and insubordinate conduct toward supervisors may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Romano [Commissioner of Labor], 291 A.D.2d 776; Matter of Puente [Commissioner of Labor], 270 A.D.2d 555, lv dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 896; Matter of Stagno [Sweeney], 239 A.D.2d 766, 767). As the behavior which precipitated claimant's discharge falls within this category, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision finding that he lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. To the extent that claimant's description of the events leading to his discharge differed from that of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the employer, this discrepancy represented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer (see Matter of Crumel [Commissioner of Labor], 258 A.D.2d 803).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of the Claim of Caraballo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 12, 2002
297 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Matter of the Claim of Caraballo

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of WAGNER J. CARABALLO, Appellant. ROCHESTER…

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

Date published: Sep 12, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 856 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 132

Citing Cases

Matter of the Claim of Roker

We affirm. It is well settled that an employee's use of vulgar and disrespectful language may constitute…

Matter of the Claim of Pagan

Following the last such incident, claimant refused to speak to his supervisor or accept work assignments from…