Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights

307 A.D.2d 881, 764 N.Y.S.2d 39

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

DecidedAugust 28, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 A.D.2d 881 (Mittl v. New York State Division 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

Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 307 A.D.2d 881, 764 N.Y.S.2d 39 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals (100 NY2d 326 [2003]), the determination of respondent Division of Human Rights, dated October 19, 2000, which awarded Mayra Rivera-Maldonado $168,414.17 in back wages and $10,000 in compensatory damages, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to reduce the award of back wages to $21,862.76, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[882]*882In considering whether the award of back pay is supported by substantial evidence, we note Dr. Mittl’s testimony that by April 1991, the new Medicare laws made it uneconomical to maintain receptionists in both his offices, so he ceased maintaining a receptionist in his Manhattan office, having all the Manhattan paperwork performed by the staff in his Brooklyn office, and all the telephone calls routed to the Brooklyn office. Ms. Rivera-Maldonado produced no evidence to rebut Dr. Mittl’s claim, but merely argued that the moving of her assigned tasks to the Brooklyn office was not the same as eliminating her position.

“The purpose of a back pay award is * * * not to punish an employer or provide a windfall to the employee” (Meling v St. Francis Coll., 3 F Supp 2d 267, 275 [1998] [citation omitted]). If the position at issue has since been eliminated, the burden is on the claimant to proffer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position still existed (Bartek v Urban Redevelopment Auth., 882 F2d 739, 747 [1989]). Here, Ms. Rivera-Maldonado failed, to produce any evidence from which to infer that she would nevertheless have been retained by Dr. Mittl. Because the Commissioner failed to take into account Dr. Mittl’s undisputed evidence that the position was subsequently eliminated, we conclude that substantial evidence failed to support an award of back pay beyond the date Dr. Mittl eliminated her position. We therefore reduce her back pay award to the period from February 27, 1990 to April 30, 1991.

While an order after a hearing in front of the State’s Human Rights Division “may include a directive for the payment of interest on any money awarded” (9 NYCRR 465.17 [b] [emphasis supplied]), it was not an abuse of discretion for the Commissioner to fail to include interest on the award of back pay (see Matter of Aurecchione v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 98 NY2d 21, 27 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals (100 NY2d 326 [2003]), the determination of respondent Division of Human Rights, dated October 19, 2000, which awarded Mayra Rivera-Maldonado $168,414.17 in back wages and $10,000 in compensatory damages, unanimously modified, on the law, so as to reduce the award of back wages to $21,862.76, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[882]*882In considering whether the award of back pay is supported by substantial evidence, we note Dr. Mittl’s testimony that by April 1991, the new Medicare laws made it uneconomical to maintain receptionists in both his offices, so he ceased maintaining a receptionist in his Manhattan office, having all the Manhattan paperwork performed by the staff in his Brooklyn office, and all the telephone calls routed to the Brooklyn office. Ms. Rivera-Maldonado produced no evidence to rebut Dr. Mittl’s claim, but merely argued that the moving of her assigned tasks to the Brooklyn office was not the same as eliminating her position.

“The purpose of a back pay award is * * * not to punish an employer or provide a windfall to the employee” (Meling v St. Francis Coll., 3 F Supp 2d 267, 275 [1998] [citation omitted]). If the position at issue has since been eliminated, the burden is on the claimant to proffer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position still existed (Bartek v Urban Redevelopment Auth., 882 F2d 739, 747 [1989]). Here, Ms. Rivera-Maldonado failed, to produce any evidence from which to infer that she would nevertheless have been retained by Dr. Mittl. Because the Commissioner failed to take into account Dr. Mittl’s undisputed evidence that the position was subsequently eliminated, we conclude that substantial evidence failed to support an award of back pay beyond the date Dr. Mittl eliminated her position. We therefore reduce her back pay award to the period from February 27, 1990 to April 30, 1991.

While an order after a hearing in front of the State’s Human Rights Division “may include a directive for the payment of interest on any money awarded” (9 NYCRR 465.17 [b] [emphasis supplied]), it was not an abuse of discretion for the Commissioner to fail to include interest on the award of back pay (see Matter of Aurecchione v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 98 NY2d 21, 27 [2002]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 881, 764 N.Y.S.2d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mittl-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack