Fine v. Berman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fine v. Berman

238 A.D.2d 220, 657 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4080

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

DecidedApril 22, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 220 (Fine v. Berman) 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

Fine v. Berman, 238 A.D.2d 220, 657 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J., and a jury), entered on or about December 4, 1995, dismissing the complaint in an action to recover for housing discrimination [221]*221on the basis of sexual orientation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The verdict was supported by evidence that demonstrated that the Board of Directors had valid reasons for not approving plaintiff’s application, including his admittedly untruthful answers on his application form, his persistent tardiness in paying rent to his present landlord and his lack of any apparent assets, which were not shown by plaintiff to be a pretext for discrimination (see, Hitter v Rubin, 208 AD2d 480, 481). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J., and a jury), entered on or about December 4, 1995, dismissing the complaint in an action to recover for housing discrimination [221]*221on the basis of sexual orientation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The verdict was supported by evidence that demonstrated that the Board of Directors had valid reasons for not approving plaintiff’s application, including his admittedly untruthful answers on his application form, his persistent tardiness in paying rent to his present landlord and his lack of any apparent assets, which were not shown by plaintiff to be a pretext for discrimination (see, Hitter v Rubin, 208 AD2d 480, 481). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 220, 657 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fine-v-berman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack