A senior CUNY technology executive exposed his genitals and groped a female subordinate while driving her home from an office happy hour, according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court. The IT senior associate, 34, says the alleged assault unfolded over the course of a December drive from Manhattan to New Jersey, and that CUNY has done little to protect her from her accused harasser since.
Carpool Turned Alleged Assault
The lawsuit says the alleged incident took place on December 2, 2025, after a work happy hour. The woman and Krafins Valcin, Senior Director of Academic Collaboration Technology at the City University of New York, had worked together for about six months and agreed to share a ride because they both lived in New Jersey, according to the suit, as reported by the New York Post. The complaint alleges that Valcin made sexual remarks and touched the woman’s fingers during the drive.
The complaint further alleges that Valcin touched the woman’s thigh as he drove toward a Newark train station where her car was parked. Once there, it says, he parked in front of her vehicle, took her hand and placed it on his erect penis, saying, “This is what you do to me,” then exposed himself by lowering his pants.
Police Case Dropped, Civil Suit Moves Forward
The woman reported the incident to Newark police, but the case was dropped over a lack of video evidence inside the parked vehicle, according to a source familiar with the situation cited by the Post. Civil sexual harassment claims under New York law, however, rely on a lower evidentiary standard — a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt — and carry a three-year statute of limitations from the date of the alleged incident, according to the New York State Attorney General, which leaves the woman's September 29 Manhattan Supreme Court filing well within the legal window.
Valcin allegedly begged the woman for forgiveness after the incident and claimed he had more to lose than she did, the suit states. She contacted CUNY's Title IX office in January 2026 and says she has suffered panic attacks in the office since the alleged assault. CUNY issued a no-contact order between Valcin and the woman that February — a directive typically issued by the university's Human Resources director under CUNY's Policy on Sexual Misconduct to keep parties apart while an internal Title IX review proceeds. That policy sets a target of 60 calendar days to complete such investigations, though the nine-month gap between the woman's January report and her September court filing suggests the review has stretched well beyond that window.
How CUNY Routes Reports
CUNY says reports submitted through its online system are reviewed and assigned to the campus Chief Diversity Officer or Title IX Coordinator for the relevant school, college or unit, according to the university’s reporting-process information. This describes CUNY’s general intake process; it does not establish how the woman’s report was handled in this case.
Accuser Says Burden Fell on Her, Not Her Alleged Harasser
Valcin remains in his position, while the woman has not returned to the office since the alleged assaults and has been working from home instead, according to the lawsuit. Her attorney, Gerald Cohen, said CUNY placed the burden on his client to adjust her workplace routine to avoid Valcin rather than addressing the accused executive's employment status. That arrangement sits in tension with New York City's accommodation rules, which require employers to engage in a good-faith “cooperative dialogue” and issue a written determination when a worker seeks adjustments following sexual harassment, according to guidance from Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP.
New York's legal landscape has shifted in ways that may bolster the woman's case. Following 2019 amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law, plaintiffs no longer need to prove that harassment was “severe or pervasive” to establish liability, according to a legal alert from Akin Gump. The city's own human rights law goes further still, holding employers liable whenever an employee is “treated less well” because of gender, excluding only trivial slights. Both New York City and State statutes also explicitly extend workplace harassment protections to off-site and off-hours settings, including commutes, according to guidance from Megan Thomas Law PLLC — a detail that could prove significant given that the alleged assault occurred not in a CUNY office, but in a car on the way home from one.
CUNY's Response and a Pattern of Litigation
Valcin has denied groping the woman and declined to comment further, according to the lawsuit. CUNY said it takes allegations of sexual assault and harassment seriously and is committed to a safe, supportive environment, but would not comment further while the litigation is pending.
CUNY, the nation's largest urban public university system with 25 campuses and more than 225,000 degree-seeking students, has faced similar civil litigation in recent months. In July, Hoodline reported on a Brooklyn College clinic groping suit, in which a health clinic provider was accused of groping students during exams — a case where CUNY issued a nearly identical statement citing its commitment to safety while declining further comment due to pending litigation. The parallel responses point to a consistent public posture from the university system as it navigates a string of workplace harassment claims against its personnel.
