From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 17, 2009
68 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 507350.

December 17, 2009.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 24, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Glenn D. Smith, Penfield, appellant pro se.

The Wolford Law Firm, L.L.P., Rochester (Elizabeth A. Wolford of counsel), for Rochester Institute of Technology, respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur.


Claimant, who was employed as a heating and air conditioning technician at a university, was terminated from his employment after he failed to follow his supervisor's request to meet with him on two consecutive days. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for benefits on the ground that he was terminated due to misconduct, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. "An employee's failure to comply with an employer's reasonable request may constitute insubordination rising to the level of disqualifying misconduct" ( Matter of Guagliardo [Commissioner of Labor], 27 AD3d 866, 867 [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Box [Commissioner of Labor], 50 AD3d 1431, 1432). Here, the employer's representatives testified that, despite having received prior written warnings that continued acts of insubordination could result in his termination, claimant failed to follow a directive from his supervisor to meet with him to discuss his work assignments on two consecutive days. To the extent that claimant denied that his supervisor requested the meetings, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve ( see Matter of Atson [Commissioner of Labor], 64 AD3d 1065, 1065-1066). Inasmuch as the employer's request was reasonable and claimant did not demonstrate a compelling reason for refusing to comply, we discern no basis for disturbing the Board's determination ( see Matter of Miner [Commissioner of Labor], 49 AD3d 1128, 1129; Matter of Lambert [Commissioner of Labor], 34 AD3d 948).

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 17, 2009
68 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

In re Smith

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of GLENN D. SMITH, Appellant. ROCHESTER…

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

Date published: Dec 17, 2009

Citations

68 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 9364
892 N.Y.S.2d 231

Citing Cases

In re Bull

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge sustained the determination and the Unemployment Insurance…

Aguasvivas v. Comm'r of Labor

We affirm. A knowing violation of an employer's established policy or reasonable request may constitute…