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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

2017 NY Slip Op 6802, 153 A.D.3d 1646, 60 N.Y.S.3d 882

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2017

Docket1076 CA 16-02308

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 6802 (Matter of Szlapak 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 Szlapak v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2017 NY Slip Op 6802, 153 A.D.3d 1646, 60 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered March 7, 2016. The order denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursu *1647 ant to Executive Law § 298 challenging the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), which dismissed, after an investigation, petitioner’s employment discrimination complaint against respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford). SDHR determined that there was no probable cause to believe that Ford engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice against petitioner. Supreme Court denied the relief sought by petitioner, thereby upholding SDHR’s determination, and we affirm.

We conclude that SDHR conducted a proper investigation and afforded petitioner a full and fair opportunity to present evidence on his behalf and to rebut the evidence presented by Ford (see Matter of Witkowich v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 56 AD3d 1170, 1170 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 702 [2009]), and we further conclude that the determination “is supported by a rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious” (Ma tter of Majchrzak v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 151 AD3d 1856, 1857 [2017]; see Matter of Napierala v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 140 AD3d 1746, 1747 [2016]; see also Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 147 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2017]).

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered March 7, 2016. The order denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursu *1647 ant to Executive Law § 298 challenging the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), which dismissed, after an investigation, petitioner’s employment discrimination complaint against respondent Ford Motor Company (Ford). SDHR determined that there was no probable cause to believe that Ford engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice against petitioner. Supreme Court denied the relief sought by petitioner, thereby upholding SDHR’s determination, and we affirm.

We conclude that SDHR conducted a proper investigation and afforded petitioner a full and fair opportunity to present evidence on his behalf and to rebut the evidence presented by Ford (see Matter of Witkowich v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 56 AD3d 1170, 1170 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 702 [2009]), and we further conclude that the determination “is supported by a rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious” (Ma tter of Majchrzak v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 151 AD3d 1856, 1857 [2017]; see Matter of Napierala v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 140 AD3d 1746, 1747 [2016]; see also Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 147 AD3d 1482, 1483 [2017]).

Present — Carni, J.P., Lindley, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 6802, 153 A.D.3d 1646, 60 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-szlapak-v-new-york-state-div-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack