Opinion
December 6, 1990
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
Although claimant does not remember making the telephone call wherein he used abusive language to his supervisor's wife and threatened his supervisor, claimant's own testimony and his admission in his brief that he made "one unfortunate call" supports the conclusion that he did make the call. Also, while he argues to the contrary, claimant knew from his suspension notice that any such conduct could result in his termination; as such, the determination that this constituted misconduct warranting claimant's disqualification from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Levick [Ross], 53 A.D.2d 950, appeal dismissed 42 N.Y.2d 909, lv denied 42 N.Y.2d 811; cf., Matter of Marquez [Roberts], 107 A.D.2d 959, 960). In addition, the record fails to support claimant's contention that the lack of an interpreter denied him due process (see, Matter of Rosado [Levine], 49 A.D.2d 782) and, in fact, it is clear from claimant's testimony that he understood why he was terminated.
Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J.P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.