Misterman v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Misterman v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

94 A.D.2d 924, 463 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18373

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

DecidedMay 26, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 924 (Misterman 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

Misterman v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 94 A.D.2d 924, 463 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding initiated in this court pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review a determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated December 22,1982, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of probable cause. In December, 1981, petitioner filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights charging that his employer was discriminating against him because of his age. The complaint alleged four instances of age discrimination which occurred in 1981. Specifically, petitioner complains that he was demoted from grade (L-16) to grade (L-14) in September, 1981, and also was not appointed to any one of three positions he applied for within the company during 1981. After conducting an investigation and receiving written rebuttal from petitioner, the division dismissed petitioner’s complaint finding no probable cause to credit the charge of discrimination. The division’s order was affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board and this proceeding ensued. It is well established that the board may not substitute its judgment for that of the division where the division’s order is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion (Matter of Logan v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 86 AD2d 910). A review of the record in the present case leads this court to the conclusion that the division’s order is not devoid of a rational basis and, thus, the board properly affirmed (see Matter ofOmoragbon v Bankers Trust Co. of Albany, 90 AD2d 887). Finally, we find no merit to petitioner’s assertion that the division’s investigation was inadequate (see Matter of Taber v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 64 AD2d 990). [925]*925The determination must be confirmed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding initiated in this court pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review a determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated December 22,1982, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights dismissing petitioner’s complaint for lack of probable cause. In December, 1981, petitioner filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights charging that his employer was discriminating against him because of his age. The complaint alleged four instances of age discrimination which occurred in 1981. Specifically, petitioner complains that he was demoted from grade (L-16) to grade (L-14) in September, 1981, and also was not appointed to any one of three positions he applied for within the company during 1981. After conducting an investigation and receiving written rebuttal from petitioner, the division dismissed petitioner’s complaint finding no probable cause to credit the charge of discrimination. The division’s order was affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board and this proceeding ensued. It is well established that the board may not substitute its judgment for that of the division where the division’s order is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion (Matter of Logan v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 86 AD2d 910). A review of the record in the present case leads this court to the conclusion that the division’s order is not devoid of a rational basis and, thus, the board properly affirmed (see Matter ofOmoragbon v Bankers Trust Co. of Albany, 90 AD2d 887). Finally, we find no merit to petitioner’s assertion that the division’s investigation was inadequate (see Matter of Taber v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 64 AD2d 990). [925]*925The determination must be confirmed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 924, 463 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/misterman-v-new-york-state-human-rights-appeal-board-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack