Aurecchione v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aurecchione v. New York State Division of Human Rights

281 A.D.2d 543, 721 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2556

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 19, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, dated April 29, 1999, which, upon a determination after a hearing that the respondent Classic Coach had discriminated against the petitioner, Carol Aurecchione, on the basis of her gender, inter alia, failed to award the petitioners pre-determination interest on back pay and awarded her only $1,500 as compensation for mental anguish.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights acted within his discretion in not including interest on the award of back pay (see, Georgeson & Co. v Stewart, 267 AD2d 126). The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit (see generally, Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207). Bracken, P. J., Santucci, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, dated April 29, 1999, which, upon a determination after a hearing that the respondent Classic Coach had discriminated against the petitioner, Carol Aurecchione, on the basis of her gender, inter alia, failed to award the petitioners pre-determination interest on back pay and awarded her only $1,500 as compensation for mental anguish.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights acted within his discretion in not including interest on the award of back pay (see, Georgeson & Co. v Stewart, 267 AD2d 126). The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit (see generally, Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207). Bracken, P. J., Santucci, S. Miller and Florio, JJ., concur.

Aurecchione v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 281 A.D.2d 543, 721 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 543 (Aurecchione v. New York State Division of Human Rights) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related