Opinion
92258
Decided and Entered: January 2, 2003.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 25, 2001, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Thomas A. Goodrich, Bainbridge, appellant pro se.
Coughlin Gerhart L.L.P., Binghamton (Joseph J. Steflik Jr. of counsel), for Raymond Corporation, respondent.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Claimant was employed as an assembler for a forklift truck manufacturer, a position from which he was discharged on the ground of insubordination after he neglected to comply with his supervisor's orders to complete certain paperwork relating to the proposed repair of a truck. It is noteworthy that claimant had been demoted approximately six months earlier for making critical comments to coworkers regarding his supervisor and for failing to perform work assigned by him. Claimant's subsequent application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he had lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. We affirm.
It is well settled that "an employee's refusal to accept reasonable work assignments may constitute insubordination rising to the level of disqualifying misconduct" (Matter of Estremera [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 694, 695; see Matter of Monroe [Commissioner of Labor], 270 A.D.2d 558, 559). The record before us provides substantial evidence supporting the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant refused to comply with a reasonable request of his supervisor and that this insubordination constituted disqualifying misconduct, especially following an earlier warning that such conduct would not be tolerated (see Matter of Jackson [Commissioner of Labor], 275 A.D.2d 826, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 769). To the extent that claimant's version of the events leading to his discharge was at variance with that presented by the employer, this discrepancy presented an issue of credibility that was within the discretionary power of the Administrative Law Judge to resolve (see Matter of Lyczek [Commissioner of Labor], 285 A.D.2d 797, 798, lv dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 700). Claimant's assertion that his due process rights were violated by the manner in which the administrative hearing was conducted have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.