Isaksson-Wilder v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isaksson-Wilder v. New York State Division of Human Rights

43 A.D.3d 921, 841 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 921 (Isaksson-Wilder 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

Isaksson-Wilder v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 43 A.D.3d 921, 841 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated September 23, 2005, which adopted the recommendation and findings of an Administrative Law Judge dated January 21, 2004, made after a hearing, finding no discriminatory practice, and dismissed the petitioner’s administrative complaint.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs to the respondent Connetquot Central School District of Islip.

[922]*922The petitioner filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (1), charging Connetquot Central School District of Islip (hereinafter the school district) with an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) for allegedly refusing to hire her on the basis of her mental disability. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency, made after a hearing at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction of law, the agency’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). Substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the SDHR) that the individuals responsible for hiring teachers at the school district were unaware that the petitioner was disabled, and that they did not perceive her to be disabled. Although the petitioner challenges the SDHR’s determination based on conflicting witness testimony at the hearing, “it is the function of the administrative agency, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or are improperly raised for the first time in this proceeding, and thus not properly before the Court (see Matter of All County Ready Mix Corp. v Martinez, 23AD3d 554 [2005]). Spolzino, J.P, Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated September 23, 2005, which adopted the recommendation and findings of an Administrative Law Judge dated January 21, 2004, made after a hearing, finding no discriminatory practice, and dismissed the petitioner’s administrative complaint.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs to the respondent Connetquot Central School District of Islip.

[922]*922The petitioner filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (1), charging Connetquot Central School District of Islip (hereinafter the school district) with an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) for allegedly refusing to hire her on the basis of her mental disability. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency, made after a hearing at which evidence was taken, pursuant to direction of law, the agency’s decision must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231 [1974]). Substantial evidence in the record supports the finding of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the SDHR) that the individuals responsible for hiring teachers at the school district were unaware that the petitioner was disabled, and that they did not perceive her to be disabled. Although the petitioner challenges the SDHR’s determination based on conflicting witness testimony at the hearing, “it is the function of the administrative agency, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Curto v Cosgrove, 256 AD2d 407, 408 [1998]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit or are improperly raised for the first time in this proceeding, and thus not properly before the Court (see Matter of All County Ready Mix Corp. v Martinez, 23AD3d 554 [2005]). Spolzino, J.P, Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 921, 841 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaksson-wilder-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack