David v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

David v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

57 A.D.3d 406, 869 N.Y.2d 504

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 406 (David v. New York City Commission on 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

David v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, 57 A.D.3d 406, 869 N.Y.2d 504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[407]*407HRC’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1998]). Notwithstanding petitioner’s concern with HRC’s alleged predisposition, the record establishes that HRC conducted a sufficient investigation, including interviewing over 20 witnesses, that was not “abbreviated or one sided” into her claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender and sexual orientation (Matter of Levin v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 12 AD3d 328, 329 [2004]). Nor is there evidence that HRC was biased against petitioner.

In light of the foregoing, petitioner’s request to convert this proceeding into a plenary action (CPLR 103 [c]) has been rendered academic. Concur — Lippman, PJ., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31312(U).]

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

[407]*407HRC’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1998]). Notwithstanding petitioner’s concern with HRC’s alleged predisposition, the record establishes that HRC conducted a sufficient investigation, including interviewing over 20 witnesses, that was not “abbreviated or one sided” into her claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender and sexual orientation (Matter of Levin v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 12 AD3d 328, 329 [2004]). Nor is there evidence that HRC was biased against petitioner.

In light of the foregoing, petitioner’s request to convert this proceeding into a plenary action (CPLR 103 [c]) has been rendered academic. Concur — Lippman, PJ., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31312(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 406, 869 N.Y.2d 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-new-york-city-commission-on-human-rights-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack