Bush v. Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bush v. Division of Human Rights

78 A.D.3d 505, 910 N.Y.S.2d 645

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.3d 505 (Bush v. 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

Bush v. Division of Human Rights, 78 A.D.3d 505, 910 N.Y.S.2d 645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[506]*506Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2009, which denied petitioner’s application to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights finding no probable cause to believe that respondent housing complex had discriminated against petitioner by denying her application for an apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that the Division conducted an appropriate and fair investigation, and that it had a rational basis for finding no probable cause to believe that petitioner’s housing application was rejected because of her race, sex, marital status, religion, or disability (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1998]; see also Gaskin v Westbourne Assoc., L.P., 59 AD3d 362 [2009]). Petitioner’s other requests for relief are not properly before this Court. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

[506]*506Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2009, which denied petitioner’s application to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights finding no probable cause to believe that respondent housing complex had discriminated against petitioner by denying her application for an apartment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that the Division conducted an appropriate and fair investigation, and that it had a rational basis for finding no probable cause to believe that petitioner’s housing application was rejected because of her race, sex, marital status, religion, or disability (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1998]; see also Gaskin v Westbourne Assoc., L.P., 59 AD3d 362 [2009]). Petitioner’s other requests for relief are not properly before this Court. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.3d 505, 910 N.Y.S.2d 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack