Garba Casting Co. v. Mosquera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garba Casting Co. v. Mosquera

99 A.D.3d 600, 953 N.Y.2d 564

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

DecidedOctober 23, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.3d 600 (Garba Casting Co. v. Mosquera) 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

Garba Casting Co. v. Mosquera, 99 A.D.3d 600, 953 N.Y.2d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner had retaliated against Mosquera for her refusal to convince another employee, her nephew, to drop his discrimination complaint against petitioner, and for her statement to petitioner that she would be a witness for her nephew (see Matter of CUNY-Hostos Community Coll, v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 NY2d 69, 75 [1983]). We reject petitioner’s contention that Mosquera’s claim must fail simply because her nephew’s complaint was ultimately found to be without merit (see Modiano v Elliman, 262 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 1999]). Indeed, there is substantial evidence that Mosquera reasonably believed that her nephew was fired for discriminatory reasons and that she was entitled to the protections of the Human Rights Law (see id.).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, including its contention that Mosquera was terminated for nondiscriminatory reasons, and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner had retaliated against Mosquera for her refusal to convince another employee, her nephew, to drop his discrimination complaint against petitioner, and for her statement to petitioner that she would be a witness for her nephew (see Matter of CUNY-Hostos Community Coll, v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 NY2d 69, 75 [1983]). We reject petitioner’s contention that Mosquera’s claim must fail simply because her nephew’s complaint was ultimately found to be without merit (see Modiano v Elliman, 262 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 1999]). Indeed, there is substantial evidence that Mosquera reasonably believed that her nephew was fired for discriminatory reasons and that she was entitled to the protections of the Human Rights Law (see id.).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments, including its contention that Mosquera was terminated for nondiscriminatory reasons, and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.3d 600, 953 N.Y.2d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garba-casting-co-v-mosquera-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack