Cohen v. , 522119.

• Decision Date: 27 July 2017
• Docket Number: 522119.
• Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Yolanda COHEN, Respondent. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

152 A.D.3d 1091
60 N.Y.S.3d 542

In the Matter of the Claim of Yolanda COHEN, Respondent.

New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, Appellant.

Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

522119.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

July 27, 2017.

60 N.Y.S.3d 543

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Michael J. Pastor of counsel), for appellant.

Michelle I. Rosien, Philmont, for Yolanda Cohen, respondent.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor, respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, EGAN JR., ROSE and MULVEY, JJ.

EGAN JR., J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 11, 2015, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant worked for the employer as a paralegal from 2007 to 2012, during which time various disciplinary charges were lodged against her. In February 2012, claimant and the employer entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving the most recent round of disciplinary infractions. Pursuant to the terms of that stipulation, claimant would waive her right to a Civil Service Law § 75 hearing and would resign effective March 15, 2012. In the interim, claimant would be allowed to collect her accrued annual leave and, going forward, would receive a "neutral reference" from the employer. Notably, the stipulation of settlement contained no admission of misconduct, and no finding of wrongdoing on the part of claimant was made.

Claimant subsequently filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits, and the Department of Labor issued initial determinations disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits upon the grounds that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause or, alternatively, lost her employment due to misconduct. Following a lengthy hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) overruled the initial determinations, finding that claimant had good cause to separate from her employment and had not otherwise committed disqualifying misconduct. In so concluding, the ALJ found that claimant had been subject to a hostile work environment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently adopted the ALJ's findings and affirmed...