Ghemawat v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ghemawat v. New York State Division of Human Rights

240 A.D.2d 577, 659 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6617

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

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 577 (Ghemawat v. New York State Division of 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

Ghemawat v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 240 A.D.2d 577, 659 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law [578]*578§ 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated January 9, 1996, which dismissed the complaint upon a finding that there was no probable cause to believe that the respondent Cornell University unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner on the basis of age or national origin, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated June 28, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Executive Law § 298; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Oneida County Sheriff’s Dept., 70 NY2d 974, 976-977; Matter of Patel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 212 AD2d 715). Contrary to Ghemawat’s contention, he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. As evidenced by the voluminous record, Ghemawat had ample opportunity to submit his contentions and evidence (see, Matter of Chirgotis v Mobil Oil Corp., 128 AD2d 400, 403), and had further opportunity to present his case during a two-party conference that was held as part of the investigation. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law [578]*578§ 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated January 9, 1996, which dismissed the complaint upon a finding that there was no probable cause to believe that the respondent Cornell University unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner on the basis of age or national origin, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.), dated June 28, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Executive Law § 298; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Oneida County Sheriff’s Dept., 70 NY2d 974, 976-977; Matter of Patel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 212 AD2d 715). Contrary to Ghemawat’s contention, he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. As evidenced by the voluminous record, Ghemawat had ample opportunity to submit his contentions and evidence (see, Matter of Chirgotis v Mobil Oil Corp., 128 AD2d 400, 403), and had further opportunity to present his case during a two-party conference that was held as part of the investigation. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 577, 659 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghemawat-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack