Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

269 A.D.2d 334, 703 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2217

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 334 (Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. 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

Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 269 A.D.2d 334, 703 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [335]*335Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered January 8, 1999, which denied petitioner employers’ application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit respondent human rights agency from taking any further proceedings on a sexual harassment complaint filed against petitioners, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners’ argument that a writ of prohibition is warranted ■ because they are not employers within the meaning of Executive Law § 292 (5) and the complainant is not an employee within the meaning of Executive Law § 292 (6) was properly rejected. Petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars this proceeding (see, Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [335]*335Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered January 8, 1999, which denied petitioner employers’ application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit respondent human rights agency from taking any further proceedings on a sexual harassment complaint filed against petitioners, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners’ argument that a writ of prohibition is warranted ■ because they are not employers within the meaning of Executive Law § 292 (5) and the complainant is not an employee within the meaning of Executive Law § 292 (6) was properly rejected. Petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars this proceeding (see, Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 334, 703 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ken-edrich-leather-accessories-inc-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack