Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1963–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Strong v. New York City Department of Educationgreen1 sentence2025Labor Law § 623 (2) clearly states that “[n]o finding of fact or law contained in a decision rendered pursuant to this article by a referee, the appeal board or a court shall preclude the litigation of any issue of fact or law in any subsequent action or proceeding” (see also Labor Law § 537 [1]; Matter of Strong v New York City Dept. of Educ., 62 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2009] [“the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that petitioner did not engage in corporeal punishment lacks preclusive effect”]; Matter of Wilson v Bratton, 266 AD2d 140, 141 [1st Dept 1999] [“the 155791/2023 A | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Brattongreen1 sentence2025Labor Law § 623 (2) clearly states that “[n]o finding of fact or law contained in a decision rendered pursuant to this article by a referee, the appeal board or a court shall preclude the litigation of any issue of fact or law in any subsequent action or proceeding” (see also Labor Law § 537 [1]; Matter of Strong v New York City Dept. of Educ., 62 AD3d 592, 593 [1st Dept 2009] [“the finding of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that petitioner did not engage in corporeal punishment lacks preclusive effect”]; Matter of Wilson v Bratton, 266 AD2d 140, 141 [1st Dept 1999] [“the 155791/2023 A | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Scottgreen1 sentence2020Commn.-Commissioner of Labor] , 258 AD2d 871, 872 [1999]; see Matter of Edie [New York City Tr. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Agrangreen1 sentence2009The Board drew its own conclusion that such behavior, which largely involved disrespectful conduct, constituted misconduct disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Agran [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 479, 480 [2008]; Matter of Sona [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d at 800 ). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Fratellogreen1 sentence2006In any event, inasmuch as hearsay evidence is admissible in an unemployment insurance hearing (see Matter of Fratello [M & R Consumer Goods—Commissioner of Labor], 271 AD2d 880, 880 [2000]), and the e-mails were germane to the circumstances surrounding claimant’s cessation of employment, we find no error. | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Obafemigreen1 sentence2000As an initial matter, inasmuch as claimant was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the disciplinary hearing, the ALJ at the unemployment insurance hearing properly accorded collateral estoppel effect to the ensuing factual findings (see, Matter of Harewood [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 934, 935 ; see also, Matter of Obafemi [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 905 ). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Claim of Fostergreen1 sentence2000Since the ALJ properly applied collateral estoppel, claimant was not entitled to relitigate the factual issues of her misconduct (see, Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717-718 ; see also, Matter of Foster [Board of Educ. — Com missioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 899 , lv denied 94 NY2d 760 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re the Claim of Hernandez
green
2 sentences2013Claimant’s contention to the contrary presented a credibility determination for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]; Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 1185 , 1185 [2012]). 2013Claimant’s contention to the contrary presented a credibility determination for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]; Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 1185 , 1185 [2012]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re the Claim of Song
green
2 sentences2013Claimant’s contention to the contrary presented a credibility determination for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]; Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 1185 , 1185 [2012]). 2013Claimant’s contention to the contrary presented a credibility determination for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Song [Commissioner of Labor], 105 AD3d 1241 , 1241 [2013]; Matter of Hernandez [Commissioner of Labor], 98 AD3d 1185 , 1185 [2012]). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
In re the Claim of Sona
green
1 sentence2009The Board drew its own conclusion that such behavior, which largely involved disrespectful conduct, constituted misconduct disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Agran [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d 479, 480 [2008]; Matter of Sona [Commissioner of Labor], 13 AD3d at 800 ). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In re the Claim of Stabile
green
1 sentence2005Claimant’s contention that he was given contrary advice from an employee at the Department of Labor regarding the need for weekly certification while awaiting a hearing presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Stabile [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 906 [1998]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re the Claim of Higgins
neutral
1 sentence2000As an initial matter, inasmuch as claimant was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of misconduct at the disciplinary hearing, the ALJ at the unemployment insurance hearing properly accorded collateral estoppel effect to the ensuing factual findings (see, Matter of Harewood [Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 934, 935 ; see also, Matter of Obafemi [Commissioner of Labor], 250 AD2d 905 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In re the Claim of Ranni
green
1 sentence2000Since the ALJ properly applied collateral estoppel, claimant was not entitled to relitigate the factual issues of her misconduct (see, Matter of Ranni [Ross], 58 NY2d 715, 717-718 ; see also, Matter of Foster [Board of Educ. — Com missioner of Labor], 262 AD2d 899 , lv denied 94 NY2d 760 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In re the Claim of Benjamin
green
1 sentence1999As previously noted by this Court, a finding of disqualifying misconduct should not be predicated upon an arrest (see, Matter of Benjamin [Hartnett], 175 AD2d 936, 937 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Herald Co. v. Weisenberg
green
1 sentence1997The court was mindful of the Court of Appeals case Matter of Herald Co. v Weisenberg ( 59 NY2d 378 [1983]), which held that it was improper to close an unemployment insurance hearing to the public. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of James (Levine)
green
1 sentence1978(Matter of James [Levine], 34 NY2d 491 ,_496’) T'Ee employee who receives unemployment benefits may, nevertheless, be the cause of his own ouster; it was not necessary to a determination of the unemployment insurance claim to resolve whether he is guilty of breach of the employment agreement or otherwise guilty of conduct not rising to the level of disqualification for unemployment benefits. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Matter of Mounting Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick
green
2 sentences1963Fourth, the Appeal Board is the highest administrative body in the unemployment insurance claim adjudication hierarchy and so its determination and its construction and application of the terms “prevailing wage” and “substantially less favorable” must be accepted by the courts “ ‘ if it has ‘ ‘ warrant in the record ’ ’ and a reasonable basis in law’” — in other words, if it has a “‘rational basis’” (Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N. Y. 104,108 ). 1963Fourth, the Appeal Board is the highest administrative body in the unemployment insurance claim adjudication hierarchy and so its determination and its construction and application of the terms "prevailing wage" and "substantially less favorable" must be accepted by the courts "`if it has "warrant in the record" and a reasonable basis in law'" — in other words, if it has a "`rational basis'" ( Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick , 294 N.Y. 104, 108 ). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.