New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. New York State Division of Human Rights

78 A.D.3d 507, 910 N.Y.S.2d 646

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander,' J.), entered March 10, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul an administrative order, dated July 28, 2008, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Commissioner’s sua sponte order to reopen a hearing on unlawful discrimination against an employee of petitioner for the purpose of completing the record was not a final determination within the meaning of CPLR 7801 (1) (see Executive Law § 298), rendering petitioner’s challenge premature (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 33 AD3d 617 [2006]). Nor does it fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of finality or the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies (see Matter of Bettina Equities Co. LLC v State of N.Y. Exec. Dept., State Div. of Human Rights, 9 AD3d 296 [2004]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander,' J.), entered March 10, 2009, dismissing this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul an administrative order, dated July 28, 2008, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Commissioner’s sua sponte order to reopen a hearing on unlawful discrimination against an employee of petitioner for the purpose of completing the record was not a final determination within the meaning of CPLR 7801 (1) (see Executive Law § 298), rendering petitioner’s challenge premature (Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 33 AD3d 617 [2006]). Nor does it fall within any of the exceptions to the rule of finality or the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies (see Matter of Bettina Equities Co. LLC v State of N.Y. Exec. Dept., State Div. of Human Rights, 9 AD3d 296 [2004]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 78 A.D.3d 507, 910 N.Y.S.2d 646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

78 A.D.3d 507 (New York & Presbyterian Hospital v. New York State Division of Human Rights) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related