Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997

In re the Claim of Krupa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 27, 1997

236 A.D.2d 772; 654 N.Y.S.2d 837; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2027

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

In re the Claim of Williams (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
In re the Claim of Graham (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
In re the Claim of Ferro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
In re the Claim of Schienberg (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
In re the Claim of Maron (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Banks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
In re the Claim of Selzer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 13, 1995, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed by a cleaning service and was assigned to clean the Amtrak section of the Pennsylvania Central Railroad Station in New York City. Claimant was discharged from his employment after he entered the booth of a female train announcer employed by Amtrak, telling her that she was going to "train” him and then began rubbing his hand on her leg. Amtrak subsequently notified the employer that claimant’s presence would no longer be tolerated on Amtrak’s premises. *773The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. Offensive behavior in the workplace constitutes disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Weiss [Sweeney], 227 AD2d 708) as does conduct that is detrimental to the employer’s interest (see, Matter of Hall [Hudacs], 192 AD2d 1043, 1044). The conduct in question met both these criteria, accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.