Columbia Sussex Corp. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

63 A.D.3d 736, 879 N.Y.S.2d 722
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 2, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 736 (Columbia Sussex Corp. 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
Columbia Sussex Corp. v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 63 A.D.3d 736, 879 N.Y.S.2d 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights dated April 25, 2007, which, after a hearing, found, in effect, that the petitioners unlawfully discriminated against the complainant in relation to her employment by subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and awarded the complainant the principal sum of $50,000 in compensatory damages for mental anguish.

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

The determination of the Commissioner of the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights which found, in effect, that the petitioners unlawfully discriminated against the complainant in relation to her employment by subjecting her to a hostile work environment is supported by substantial evidence, and thus, cannot be disturbed (see Matter of Hilal v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 57 AD3d 898 [2008]). Furthermore, the compensatory award is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by substantial evidence, and similar to comparable awards for similar injuries (see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207, 219 [1991]; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Stoute, 36 AD3d 257, 266 [2006]).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.E, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Stellar Dental Mgt. LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
2018 NY Slip Op 4483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Delkap Mgt., Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
2016 NY Slip Op 8073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Team Taco Mexico, Corp.
140 A.D.3d 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Twelfth Street Corp. v. Kirkland
106 A.D.3d 1098 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
New York State Division of Human Rights v. ABS Electronics, Inc.
102 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Murphy v. Kirkland
88 A.D.3d 795 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Garrison Protective Services, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights
71 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.3d 736, 879 N.Y.S.2d 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-sussex-corp-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2009.