Kaess v. Board of Education

115 A.D.2d 649, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55096

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of [650] the State Division of Human Rights, dated August 29, 1984, which dismissed the complaint on the basis of no probable cause.

Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, with costs.

The determination of the State Division of Human Rights dismissing the petitioner’s complaint alleging age discrimination was supported by "sufficient evidence on the record considered as a whole” (Executive Law § 298; see also, Burlington Indus. v New York City Human Rights Commn., 82 AD2d 415, affd 58 NY2d 983; State Div. of Human Rights v Xerox Corp., 60 AD2d 763; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Drug Abuse Control Commn., 59 AD2d 332; State Div. of Human Rights v Buffalo Auto Glass Co., 42 AD2d 678; Matter of Jwayyed v New York Tel. Co., 42 AD2d 663). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Kaess v. Board of Education, 115 A.D.2d 649, 496 N.Y.S.2d 1012, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

115 A.D.2d 649 (Kaess v. Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jwayyed v. New York Telephone Co.
42 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
State Division of Human Rights v. Buffalo Auto Glass Co.
42 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Drug Abuse Control Commission
59 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
State Division of Human Rights v. Xerox Corp.
60 A.D.2d 763 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. New York City Human Rights Commission
82 A.D.2d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)