de la Concha v. Gatling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

de la Concha v. Gatling

13 A.D.3d 74, 784 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14736

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 2, 2004·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered September 22, 2003, which dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul [75] respondent’s determination and order after review affirming a determination and order after investigation which found no probable cause, and denied petitioner’s motion to amend and recalendar the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A petition to challenge the administrative finding of no probable cause was previously dismissed on default in November 2002. Petitioner neither moved to vacate that default nor commenced a new proceeding in accordance with the statutory requirements (see Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327 [1996]). Even if petitioner had properly commenced a new proceeding, it would have been barred as untimely (Administrative Code of City of NY §8-123).

Were we to review respondent’s determination of no probable cause, we would find it rationally based. Petitioner was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case (Matter of Mitchell v Commissioner of Human Rights, 234 AD2d 128 [1996]). The evidence credited by respondent revealed that petitioner was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered September 22, 2003, which dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul [75] respondent’s determination and order after review affirming a determination and order after investigation which found no probable cause, and denied petitioner’s motion to amend and recalendar the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A petition to challenge the administrative finding of no probable cause was previously dismissed on default in November 2002. Petitioner neither moved to vacate that default nor commenced a new proceeding in accordance with the statutory requirements (see Matter of Gershel v Porr, 89 NY2d 327 [1996]). Even if petitioner had properly commenced a new proceeding, it would have been barred as untimely (Administrative Code of City of NY §8-123).

Were we to review respondent’s determination of no probable cause, we would find it rationally based. Petitioner was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case (Matter of Mitchell v Commissioner of Human Rights, 234 AD2d 128 [1996]). The evidence credited by respondent revealed that petitioner was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

de la Concha v. Gatling, 13 A.D.3d 74, 784 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

13 A.D.3d 74 (de la Concha v. Gatling) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related