Jones v. Gilman Paper Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Gilman Paper Co.

166 A.D.2d 294

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 294 (Jones v. Gilman Paper Co.) 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

Jones v. Gilman Paper Co., 166 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 4, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, prior to commencing this action alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 194, filed a complaint with the City Commission on Human Rights alleging sexual discrimination arising out of the same facts and circumstances. The filing of the administrative complaint constituted an election of remedies barring maintenance of this action. (Executive Law § 297 [9]; Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-112; see generally, Emil v Dewey, 49 NY2d 968, 969.) Plaintiff’s argument that the Administrative Code is inconsistent with the Labor Law, in violation of the "home rule” provisions of the State Constitution, is without basis in view of the explicit provisions of Executive Law § 297 (9) providing that the filing of a complaint "hereunder or with any local commission on human rights” shall preclude a subsequent action in any court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 4, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, prior to commencing this action alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 194, filed a complaint with the City Commission on Human Rights alleging sexual discrimination arising out of the same facts and circumstances. The filing of the administrative complaint constituted an election of remedies barring maintenance of this action. (Executive Law § 297 [9]; Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-112; see generally, Emil v Dewey, 49 NY2d 968, 969.) Plaintiff’s argument that the Administrative Code is inconsistent with the Labor Law, in violation of the "home rule” provisions of the State Constitution, is without basis in view of the explicit provisions of Executive Law § 297 (9) providing that the filing of a complaint "hereunder or with any local commission on human rights” shall preclude a subsequent action in any court. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-gilman-paper-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack