Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

60 A.D.2d 820, 401 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 820 (Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board) 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

Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 60 A.D.2d 820, 401 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated March 16, 1977, reversing an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated May 29, 1975, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and order of the State division reinstated. The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the appeal board’s determination that there was probable cause to believe that the petitioner was engaging in an unlawful discriminatory practice under section 296 of the Executive Law (Bache & Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 35 AD2d 928). It is clear from the record that the complainant was rejected for a medical reason rather than for his creed (Jewish) and color (Caucasian). To the contrary, the evidence indicates that many of petitioner’s employees are Jewish and Caucasian. If the complainant is aggrieved by the fact that he was not granted a second physical by the petitioner or by the fact that the petitioner’s test results were not released to him, appropriate recourse may be taken under CPLR article 78 The State division does not have jurisdiction to entertain an article 78 proceeding brought on those grounds. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.

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

Determination of State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated March 16, 1977, reversing an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated May 29, 1975, unanimously annulled, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and order of the State division reinstated. The record does not contain substantial evidence to support the appeal board’s determination that there was probable cause to believe that the petitioner was engaging in an unlawful discriminatory practice under section 296 of the Executive Law (Bache & Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 35 AD2d 928). It is clear from the record that the complainant was rejected for a medical reason rather than for his creed (Jewish) and color (Caucasian). To the contrary, the evidence indicates that many of petitioner’s employees are Jewish and Caucasian. If the complainant is aggrieved by the fact that he was not granted a second physical by the petitioner or by the fact that the petitioner’s test results were not released to him, appropriate recourse may be taken under CPLR article 78 The State division does not have jurisdiction to entertain an article 78 proceeding brought on those grounds. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 820, 401 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-bronx-surface-transit-operating-authority-v-new-york-state-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack