Ehrlich v. Kantor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehrlich v. Kantor

213 A.D.2d 447, 624 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2709

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 447 (Ehrlich v. Kantor) 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

Ehrlich v. Kantor, 213 A.D.2d 447, 624 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for employment discrimination and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated September 20, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff elected to file a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, she is barred from commencing an action in State court based on the same alleged discriminatory practices (see, Executive Law § 297 [9]; Marine Midland Bank v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 75 NY2d 240; Emil v Dewey, 49 NY2d 968; Matter of James v Coughlin, 124 AD2d 728). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for employment discrimination and breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), dated September 20, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff elected to file a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, she is barred from commencing an action in State court based on the same alleged discriminatory practices (see, Executive Law § 297 [9]; Marine Midland Bank v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 75 NY2d 240; Emil v Dewey, 49 NY2d 968; Matter of James v Coughlin, 124 AD2d 728). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 447, 624 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrlich-v-kantor-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack