Filed Date: 5/21/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
—Determina
No basis exists for disturbing respondent’s finding that the questions put by petitioner to the claimant in an unemployment insurance hearing, ostensibly to probe the credibility of her claim that she had been sexually harassed in her employment and therefore had good cause for leaving it, went far beyond the range of relevancy to petitioner’s fact-finding duties. Such duties did not include “a sexual harassment inquiry of the type one would find before EEOC or DHR,” and otherwise were so unnecessarily detailed and repetitive as to cross the line of appropriate questioning and constitute misconduct (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments, including that he was denied due process and that the penalty is excessive. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Wallach and Gonzalez, JJ.