Matter of Naylor [Commr. of Labor]

Decided and Entered: December 29, 2005
98471
______
In the Matter of DANIEL T.
NAYLOR, Appellant.
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
_
Calendar Date: November 28, 2005
Before: Mercure, J.P.,.....

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Decided and Entered: December 29, 2005 98471 ________________________________ In the Matter of DANIEL T. NAYLOR, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent. ___________________________ Calendar Date: November 28, 2005 Before: Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ. __________ Daniel T. Naylor, Fort Edward, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent. __________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 9, 2005, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. Claimant worked as a driver for a mail delivery contractor. After claimant received the employer’s approval to take a Saturday off and arranged to have another person work his shift, the employer’s owner advised him that he wanted a different individual to cover claimant’s shift. An argument ensued, during which claimant got into his delivery truck and drove away while the owner was talking to him. Claimant subsequently was terminated and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, among other things, disqualified claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employment due to misconduct. Claimant appeals. We affirm. It is well settled that insubordinate and disrespectful conduct toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Sona [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d 799, 800 [2004]; Matter fo Montanye [Commissioner of Labor], 10 AD3d 830, 831 [2004]). Here, claimant admitted that he may have used inappropriate language while arguing with the owner and that he drove off while the owner was speaking to him because he did not want to get involved in a confrontation. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Matter of Naylor [Commr. of Labor]

Decided and Entered: December 29, 2005 98471 ________________________________ In the Matter of DANIEL T. NAYLOR, Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent. ___________________________ Calendar Date: November 28, 2005 Before: Mercure, J.P.,.....

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal

Decided and Entered: December 29, 2005
98471
______
In the Matter of DANIEL T.
NAYLOR, Appellant.
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.
_
Calendar Date: November 28, 2005
Before: Mercure, J.P.,.....