New York City Board of Education v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York City Board of Education v. New York State Division of Human Rights

104 A.D.2d 418, 478 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19875

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 A.D.2d 418 (New York City Board of Education 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

New York City Board of Education v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 104 A.D.2d 418, 478 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review a determination of the respondent New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated October 12, 1983, which affirmed a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights that petitioner discriminated against respondent Eduardo Ordonez, and, inter alia, [419]*419awarded him back pay. The division cross-petitions for enforcement of the order.

Determination confirmed, petition dismissed, and cross petition for enforcement granted, with one bill of costs payable to respondent-petitioner and respondent Ordonez by the New York City Board of Education, to be fixed by the County Clerk of Kings County, under CPLR 8203 and 8301.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence (New York City Bd. of Educ. v Batista, 54 NY2d 379; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176), and the division correctly held the board of education to be legally responsible for the discriminatory acts practiced against Eduardo Ordonez (New York City Bd. of Educ. v Batista, supra). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review a determination of the respondent New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated October 12, 1983, which affirmed a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights that petitioner discriminated against respondent Eduardo Ordonez, and, inter alia, [419]*419awarded him back pay. The division cross-petitions for enforcement of the order.

Determination confirmed, petition dismissed, and cross petition for enforcement granted, with one bill of costs payable to respondent-petitioner and respondent Ordonez by the New York City Board of Education, to be fixed by the County Clerk of Kings County, under CPLR 8203 and 8301.

The determination is supported by substantial evidence (New York City Bd. of Educ. v Batista, 54 NY2d 379; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176), and the division correctly held the board of education to be legally responsible for the discriminatory acts practiced against Eduardo Ordonez (New York City Bd. of Educ. v Batista, supra). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D.2d 418, 478 N.Y.S.2d 942, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-city-board-of-education-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack