Opinion
June 5, 1975
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 16, 1974, which disqualified claimant from receiving benefits because she refused employment without good cause. The determination denying claimant benefits in this case rests primarily upon an issue of credibility. Claimant, a cocktail waitress, refused reemployment with her former employer asserting that he had previously made improper advances toward her. At a hearing this accusation was denied by the employer and claimant, then without an attorney, requested an adjournment so that her attorney would be available to cross-examine him concerning this denial. At a later hearing, when claimant's attorney was present, the employer did not appear and, thus, claimant was deprived of an opportunity to have her attorney cross-examine him on the crucial question of whether she had properly refused employment from one who allegedly expected immoral favors as a condition of employment. From a reading of the record in its entirety, it is clear that an adequate cross-examination of the employer might easily have affected a determination on the credibility issue in claimant's favor. In any event, basic principles of due process require that she have the requested opportunity to cross-examine her employer when her rights are being determined on the basis of his testimony (cf. Matter of Salazar [Levine], 48 A.D.2d 75; Matter of Harper [Levine], 41 A.D.2d 975). Decision reversed, with costs, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Greenblott, J.P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.