Matter of Miller v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

129 A.D.3d 973, 10 N.Y.S.3d 458
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 17, 2015
Docket2014-02613
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 973 (Matter of Miller v. New York State Div. 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
Matter of Miller v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 129 A.D.3d 973, 10 N.Y.S.3d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated March 19, 2012, dismissing the petitioner’s administrative complaint, the New York State Division of Human Rights appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated January 13, 2014, which, in effect, denied that branch of its motion which was to quash so much of a subpoena duces tecum as demanded the production of its General Counsel’s Legal Opinion Nos. 1976-28, 2009-08, 2001-26, and 1997-06 and, upon in camera review of the subject documents, directed their production in redacted form.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the motion of the New York State Division of Human Rights which was to quash so much of a subpoena duces tecum as demanded the production of its General Counsel’s Legal Opinion Nos. 1976-28, 2009-08, 2001-26, and 1997-06 is granted.

“Judicial review of administrative determinations is confined to the facts and record adduced before the agency” (Matter of Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d 342, 347 [2000] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]), and disclosure is permitted only by leave of court (see CPLR 408). Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in allowing the disclosure of the subject documents, as there is nothing in the administra *974 tive record to indicate that the agency relied on them in making the determination under review.

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Cotazino v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency
186 N.Y.S.3d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
129 A.D.3d 973, 10 N.Y.S.3d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-miller-v-new-york-state-div-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2015.