Davan v. Mercado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Davan v. Mercado

249 A.D.2d 171, 671 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4410

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

DecidedApril 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D.2d 171 (Davan v. Mercado) 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

Davan v. Mercado, 249 A.D.2d 171, 671 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 26, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent State Division of Human Rights’ determination dismissing so much of petitioner’s complaint as alleges employment discrimination based upon marital status and disability, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Concerning the marital status claim, even now petitioner fails to adduce any evidence in support thereof. Concerning the disability claim, first asserted in an amended complaint filed beyond the one-year time limit in Executive Law § 297 (5), respondent’s finding that petitioner’s employer did not receive notice thereof by reason of petitioner’s original, but “materially different”, charges of discrimination based on marital status and age, and that the claim, therefore, is not saved by any relation back doctrine, is not arbitrary and capricious (see, Pejic v Hughes Helicopters, 840 F2d 667, 675). We have considered [172]*172petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 26, 1996, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent State Division of Human Rights’ determination dismissing so much of petitioner’s complaint as alleges employment discrimination based upon marital status and disability, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Concerning the marital status claim, even now petitioner fails to adduce any evidence in support thereof. Concerning the disability claim, first asserted in an amended complaint filed beyond the one-year time limit in Executive Law § 297 (5), respondent’s finding that petitioner’s employer did not receive notice thereof by reason of petitioner’s original, but “materially different”, charges of discrimination based on marital status and age, and that the claim, therefore, is not saved by any relation back doctrine, is not arbitrary and capricious (see, Pejic v Hughes Helicopters, 840 F2d 667, 675). We have considered [172]*172petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 171, 671 N.Y.S.2d 256, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davan-v-mercado-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack