Belgrave v. State Division of Human Rights

68 A.D.2d 922, 414 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11172
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 19, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 68 A.D.2d 922 (Belgrave v. 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
Belgrave v. State Division of Human Rights, 68 A.D.2d 922, 414 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated November 1, 1978, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated January 23, 1978, dismissing petitioner’s complaint upon a finding that there was no probable cause to believe the New York State Department of Correctional Services had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice. Order annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted to the extent that the matter is remanded to the State Division of Human Rights for a public hearing pursuant to section 297 (subd 4, par a) of the Executive Law. The dismissal of this complaint alleging race discrimination "was based upon an investigation which was abbreviated and one-sided and resulted in a record which did not afford a reasonable basis for an administrative determination” (Tenenbaum v State Div. of Human Rights, 50 AD2d 257, 259). "Where there has not been a full investigation and opportunity for the complainant to present his contentions and evidence, with a full record thereof, a public hearing under paragraph a of subdivision 4 [of section 297 of the Executive Law] must be held, for in such case the record does not establish a rational basis for the commissioner’s determination of no probable cause for the complaint” (State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Drug Abuse Control Comm., 59 AD2d 332, 337; State Div. of Human Rights v Board of Educ., 46 AD2d 483; cf. Tenenbaum v State Div. of Human Rights, 50 AD2d 257, supra). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toliver v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
279 P.3d 619 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2012)
Lee v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board
111 A.D.2d 748 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Tirino v. Long Island Jewish-Hillside Medical Center
99 A.D.2d 513 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.2d 922, 414 N.Y.S.2d 377, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belgrave-v-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1979.