TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Claim of Campbell

In the Matter of the Claim of Lebert Campbell, New York City Department of Transportation, Respondent Commissioner of Labor

In re the Claim of Campbell, 258 A.D.2d 761 (1999)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 7, 1999
Citations
258 A.D.2d 761683 N.Y.S.2d 3501999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8257 A.D.2d 761

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 30, 1997, which denied claimant’s application to reopen a previous decision ruling that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he was suspended from his employment without pay due to misconduct.

Claimant signed a stipulation admitting to violating the employer’s code of conduct and agreeing to a penalty of, inter alia, 30 days’ suspension without pay. By decision dated February 26, 1997, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the 30-day period because the *762 suspension was due to misconduct. The Board denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider the February 26, 1997 decision, prompting this appeal by claimant. We affirm. Initially, our review of the record discloses no abuse of the Board’s discretion in denying claimant’s application for reconsideration of its prior decision (see, Matter of Higgins [Hudacs], 201 AD2d 810 ). In any event, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusions that claimant voluntarily admitted to a knowing violation of the employer’s code of conduct and that he was therefore guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 931 ; Matter of Olan [Ross], 60 AD2d 113, 116 ).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

2000: 12002: 22005: 12008: 12010: 120002026peak 2002 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jael Fraise v. Jack Terhune, Commissioner283 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2002)
  2. In re the Claim of Liebman20 A.D.3d 858 (2005)
  3. Mercado v. Selsky47 A.D.3d 1167 (2008)
  4. Tenace v. Goord278 A.D.2d 549 (2000)
  5. Barnes v. City of New York296 A.D.2d 330 (2002)
  6. Roye v. State of New York2010 NY Slip Op 34127(U) (2010)

Most recent

  1. Roye v. State of New York2010 NY Slip Op 34127(U) (2010)
  2. Mercado v. Selsky47 A.D.3d 1167 (2008)
  3. In re the Claim of Liebman20 A.D.3d 858 (2005)
  4. Barnes v. City of New York296 A.D.2d 330 (2002)
  5. Jael Fraise v. Jack Terhune, Commissioner283 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 2002)
  6. Tenace v. Goord278 A.D.2d 549 (2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Claim of Olan, 60 A.D.2d 113 (1977) 15
In re the Claim of Carr, 253 A.D.2d 931 (1998) 4
In re the Claim of Higgins, 201 A.D.2d 810 (1994) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list