New York State Division of Human Rights v. Nancy Potenza Design & Building Services, Inc.

87 A.D.3d 1365, 930 N.Y.2d 151
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 30, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1365 (New York State Division of Human Rights v. Nancy Potenza Design & Building Services, Inc.) 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 State Division of Human Rights v. Nancy Potenza Design & Building Services, Inc., 87 A.D.3d 1365, 930 N.Y.2d 151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Memorandum:

Petitioner New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) commenced this proceeding for judicial review and enforcement of an order pursuant to Executive Law § 298 finding that respondent Nancy Potenza Design & Building Services, Inc. was liable, as the complainant’s employer, of aiding and abetting the sexual harassment of the complainant. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarded the complainant $10,000 in compensatory damages based on a hostile work environment claim and the Commissioner of SDHR (Commissioner) adopted the recommended order of the ALJ. We conclude that there is substantial evidence supporting the determination (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]).

The fact that the sexual harassment did not take place on the employer’s premises does not relieve the employer of liability under the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15; see Lockard v Pizza Hut, Inc., 162 F3d 1062 [1998]). Additionally, [1366]*1366respondent Rocco Potenza, as the owner and president of the employer who condoned the sexual harassment, may be held individually liable for the discriminatory actions that damaged the complainant (see Patrowich v Chemical Bank, 63 NY2d 541, 542 [1984]). Finally, we conclude that the amount of the award is reasonably related to the wrongdoing and is supported by the evidence before the Commissioner (see Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 265 AD2d 809 [1999]). Present — Smith, J.P, Centra, Garni and Lindley, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Hawk
2021 NY Slip Op 03687 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. GSN Transp.
2021 NY Slip Op 02629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of El Agave Mexican Grill, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
2021 NY Slip Op 01651 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Margaret Doe v. Bloomberg, L.P
New York Court of Appeals, 2021
Ananiadis v. Mediterranean Gyros Products, Inc.
2017 NY Slip Op 5058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 A.D.3d 1365, 930 N.Y.2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-v-nancy-potenza-design-building-nyappdiv-2011.