In re the Claim of Cruz

288 A.D.2d 813, 733 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11510
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 29, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 813 (In re the Claim of Cruz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Claim of Cruz, 288 A.D.2d 813, 733 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 21, 2001, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed by the City University of New York as the Director of Public Safety and Security at its Queens College campus. He was discharged from this employment after violating the employer’s policy requiring all supervisory personnel to report to the College Sexual Harassment Panel any allegations of sexual harassment that had been made against a member of his or her staff.

Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant’s employment was terminated due to misconduct. It is well settled that a claimant’s knowing failure to comply with the employer’s established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct, especially in cases where such failure could jeopardize the employer’s best interest (see, Matter of Huggins, [814]*814257 AD2d 877, 878; Matter of Johnson, 257 AD2d 823, 824). In this matter, claimant admitted that he had twice neglected to report allegations of sexual harassment that had been filed against members of his staff. His failure to do so prevented the employer from taking prompt action to address the allegations, thereby rendering it vulnerable to potential liability. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the decision of the Board finding that claimant lost his job under disqualifying circumstances.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re the Claim of Caporale
4 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re the Claim of Bolasny
3 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 813, 733 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-cruz-nyappdiv-2001.