In re the Claim of Ward, 256 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
In re the Claim of Ward, 256 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In re the Claim of Gawrys (nyappdiv, 2016-06-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Gawrys
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In view of this procedural irregularity, we find that due process requires that the decisions be reversed and the matter remitted for a new hearing (see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; Matter of Philip [Brody— Commissioner of Labor], 120 AD3d 1470 , 1471 [2014]; Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 773, 774 [1998]; Matter of Box [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 608, 608 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Gawrys
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In view of this procedural irregularity, we find that due process requires that the decisions be reversed and the matter remitted for a new hearing (see 12 NYCRR 461.4 [c]; Matter of Philip [Brody— Commissioner of Labor], 120 AD3d 1470 , 1471 [2014]; Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 773, 774 [1998]; Matter of Box [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 608, 608 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re the Claim of Moseley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as such reports plainly were germane to the pivotal issue in this matter—whether claimant did in fact falsify work-related forms—we agree with the parties that this matter must be remitted for the production of those reports (see Matter of Liposki [Citifloral, Inc.—Commissioner of Labor], 261 AD2d 665, 666 [1999]; Matter of Mintzer [Sheft—Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 965, 966 [1998]; Matter of Ward [Commissioner of Labor], 256 AD2d 773, 774 [1998]; Matter of Box [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 608 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Claim of James M. Ward, Commissioner of Labor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 10, 1998.
256 A.D.2d 773
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

—Ap[*774] peal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an oil burner mechanic, was confronted by the employer regarding two complaints by customers concerning his attitude and conduct when making service calls. Claimant, ignoring the employer’s directive that claimant should go to lunch and that the discussion would be continued later, was discharged after repeatedly asking the employer if he was fired. Claimant was denied unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he lost his employment due to misconduct. Toward the end of the evidentiary hearing, claimant asked the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) if he was allowed to subpoena witnesses. The ALJ replied that it was too late to do so and proceeded with the hearing. In the absence of a finding by the ALJ that the subpoenas were unnecessary because the requested witnesses would have no relevant or material testimony to offer, we agree with claimant that due process mandates that the decision be reversed and the matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings (see, Matter of Box [Commissioner of Labor], 249 AD2d 608).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.