Becker v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Becker v. New York State Division of Human Rights

91 A.D.2d 674, 457 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19548

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 674 (Becker 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

Becker v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 91 A.D.2d 674, 457 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 10, 1980, which affirmed a determination and order (one paper) of the State Division of Human Rights, dated June 27, 1980, dismissing, after an investigation and upon a finding that no probable cause existed, the petitioner’s complaint of an unlawful discriminatory act relating to employment because of age. Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the State Division of Human Rights was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The determination that no probable cause existed is supported by the evidence in the record (Kowalski v Nassau County Bd. of Supervisors, 57 AD2d 858). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 10, 1980, which affirmed a determination and order (one paper) of the State Division of Human Rights, dated June 27, 1980, dismissing, after an investigation and upon a finding that no probable cause existed, the petitioner’s complaint of an unlawful discriminatory act relating to employment because of age. Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the State Division of Human Rights was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The determination that no probable cause existed is supported by the evidence in the record (Kowalski v Nassau County Bd. of Supervisors, 57 AD2d 858). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 674, 457 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/becker-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack