Nales v. Santaella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nales v. Santaella

73 A.D.2d 851, 423 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9738

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.2d 851 (Nales v. Santaella) 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

Nales v. Santaella, 73 A.D.2d 851, 423 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 7, 1979, dismissing, sua sponte, the complaint on the ground that the New York State Division of Human Rights exceeded the statutory time limit for deciding the case, unanimously confirmed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In circumstances similar to those presented here, we have already ruled that the time limit for determination of a complaint filed with the State division is directory rather than mandatory. (See Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights, 72 AD2d 679; see, also, Matter of Navarro v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 72 AD2d 680.) Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed by the appeals board without a review of the merits. As in Callaghan (supra), we have, however, reviewed the merits and find that the division’s dismissal of the complaint after hearing was supported by substantial evidence. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

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

Determination of the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated August 7, 1979, dismissing, sua sponte, the complaint on the ground that the New York State Division of Human Rights exceeded the statutory time limit for deciding the case, unanimously confirmed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In circumstances similar to those presented here, we have already ruled that the time limit for determination of a complaint filed with the State division is directory rather than mandatory. (See Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights, 72 AD2d 679; see, also, Matter of Navarro v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 72 AD2d 680.) Accordingly, the complaint should not have been dismissed by the appeals board without a review of the merits. As in Callaghan (supra), we have, however, reviewed the merits and find that the division’s dismissal of the complaint after hearing was supported by substantial evidence. Concur—Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 851, 423 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nales-v-santaella-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack