Matter of Leibowitz v. Westchester County Human Rights Commn.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Leibowitz v. Westchester County Human Rights Commn.

2016 NY Slip Op 8863, 145 A.D.3d 1008, 42 N.Y.S.3d 867

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2016

Docket2014-03397

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8863 (Matter of Leibowitz v. Westchester County Human Rights Commn.) 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

Matter of Leibowitz v. Westchester County Human Rights Commn., 2016 NY Slip Op 8863, 145 A.D.3d 1008, 42 N.Y.S.3d 867 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission dated February 7, 2013, which confirmed a determination of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission Fair Housing Board dated November 29, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that the intervenors-respondents did not engage in unlawful discriminatory conduct in denying the petitioner’s request for permission to keep an emotional support animal in his apartment and did not engage in retaliation under the Westchester Human Rights Law.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs to the respondent and the intervenors-respon-dents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission (hereinafter the Commission) that the petitioner was not disabled within the meaning of the Westchester County Fair Housing Law *1009 (hereinafter WCFHL), and that he was not handicapped within the meaning of the federal Fair Housing Act, was supported by substantial evidence (see WCFHL § 700.20 [D] [1]; 42 USC § 3602 [h] [1]; Matter of Hoffmann Invs. Corp. v Ruderman, 127 AD3d 1086, 1087-1088 [2015]; Matter of Sussex Condominium III v County of Rockland Fair Hous. Bd., 84 AD3d 965, 966 [2011]; Castillo Condominium Assn. v United States Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 821 F3d 92, 95 [1st Cir 2016]; see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). In addition, the Commission’s determination that the petitioner was not subject to retaliation was also supported by substantial evidence (see WCFHL §§ 700.07 [b]; 700.21 [A] [10]; 700.23 [B]; 42 USC § 3617; Hopkins v Springfield Hous. Auth., 592 Fed Appx 528, 529-530 [7th Cir 2015]; Gallagher v Magner, 619 F3d 823, 838 [8th Cir 2010]; DuBois v Association of Apt. Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F3d 1175, 1180 [9th Cir 2006]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, 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 Westchester County Human Rights Commission dated February 7, 2013, which confirmed a determination of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission Fair Housing Board dated November 29, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that the intervenors-respondents did not engage in unlawful discriminatory conduct in denying the petitioner’s request for permission to keep an emotional support animal in his apartment and did not engage in retaliation under the Westchester Human Rights Law.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs to the respondent and the intervenors-respon-dents, appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination of the Westchester County Human Rights Commission (hereinafter the Commission) that the petitioner was not disabled within the meaning of the Westchester County Fair Housing Law *1009 (hereinafter WCFHL), and that he was not handicapped within the meaning of the federal Fair Housing Act, was supported by substantial evidence (see WCFHL § 700.20 [D] [1]; 42 USC § 3602 [h] [1]; Matter of Hoffmann Invs. Corp. v Ruderman, 127 AD3d 1086, 1087-1088 [2015]; Matter of Sussex Condominium III v County of Rockland Fair Hous. Bd., 84 AD3d 965, 966 [2011]; Castillo Condominium Assn. v United States Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 821 F3d 92, 95 [1st Cir 2016]; see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). In addition, the Commission’s determination that the petitioner was not subject to retaliation was also supported by substantial evidence (see WCFHL §§ 700.07 [b]; 700.21 [A] [10]; 700.23 [B]; 42 USC § 3617; Hopkins v Springfield Hous. Auth., 592 Fed Appx 528, 529-530 [7th Cir 2015]; Gallagher v Magner, 619 F3d 823, 838 [8th Cir 2010]; DuBois v Association of Apt. Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F3d 1175, 1180 [9th Cir 2006]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8863, 145 A.D.3d 1008, 42 N.Y.S.3d 867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-leibowitz-v-westchester-county-human-rights-commn-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack