Arnold v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnold v. New York State Division of Human Rights

70 A.D.3d 605, 894 N.Y.S.2d 432

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 25, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 605 (Arnold v. New York State Division of Human Rights) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 70 A.D.3d 605, 894 N.Y.S.2d 432 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered January 6, 2009, which granted the motion of respondents Beth Abraham Health Services, Kono, Connolly and Frazier-White to deny the petition in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In challenging his termination of employment, petitioner introduced his complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights with an allegation that his employers discriminated against him based on his age. In this Court, his argument is captioned as gender-based discrimination. Nevertheless, his complaint throughout this proceeding has specified only that he was terminated for jury service. The alleged violation of an employee’s right to be absent from work for jury duty (Judiciary Law § 519) does not give rise to a private right of action (Gomariz v Foote, Cone & Belding Communications, 228 AD2d 316 [1996]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered January 6, 2009, which granted the motion of respondents Beth Abraham Health Services, Kono, Connolly and Frazier-White to deny the petition in its entirety, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In challenging his termination of employment, petitioner introduced his complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights with an allegation that his employers discriminated against him based on his age. In this Court, his argument is captioned as gender-based discrimination. Nevertheless, his complaint throughout this proceeding has specified only that he was terminated for jury service. The alleged violation of an employee’s right to be absent from work for jury duty (Judiciary Law § 519) does not give rise to a private right of action (Gomariz v Foote, Cone & Belding Communications, 228 AD2d 316 [1996]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 605, 894 N.Y.S.2d 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack