New York State Division of Human Rights v. Neighborhood Youth & Family Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York State Division of Human Rights v. Neighborhood Youth & Family Services

102 A.D.3d 491, 956 N.Y.S.2d 892

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 491 (New York State Division of Human Rights v. Neighborhood Youth & Family Services) 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. Neighborhood Youth & Family Services, 102 A.D.3d 491, 956 N.Y.S.2d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Application pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce petitioner New York State Division of Human Rights’ (DHR) order, dated October 15, 2008, which found that respondent had discriminated against petitioner Angel Rivera on the basis of his gender, and, among other things, directed respondent to pay Rivera back pay in the principal amount of $11,511.67 and compensatory damages for mental anguish and humiliation in the principal amount of $10,000 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County [Mark Friedlander, J], entered September 29, 2011), unanimously granted, without costs.

DHR’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]; Matter of Bronx Cross County Med. Group v Lassen, 233 AD2d 234, 235 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 813 [1997]). Respondent, which defaulted in this proceeding, obviously failed to rebut a prima facie showing that it had discriminated against Rivera on account of his gender (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v ARC XVI Inwood, Inc., 17 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2005]). The awards of back pay and compensatory damages are proper (see Executive Law § 297 [4] [c] [ii], [iii]; Matter of Mize v State Div. of Human Rights, 33 NY2d 53, 56 [1973]; ARC XVI Inwood, 17 AD3d at 239). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Renwick, Freedman, Román and Gische, JJ.

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

Application pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce petitioner New York State Division of Human Rights’ (DHR) order, dated October 15, 2008, which found that respondent had discriminated against petitioner Angel Rivera on the basis of his gender, and, among other things, directed respondent to pay Rivera back pay in the principal amount of $11,511.67 and compensatory damages for mental anguish and humiliation in the principal amount of $10,000 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County [Mark Friedlander, J], entered September 29, 2011), unanimously granted, without costs.

DHR’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]; Matter of Bronx Cross County Med. Group v Lassen, 233 AD2d 234, 235 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 813 [1997]). Respondent, which defaulted in this proceeding, obviously failed to rebut a prima facie showing that it had discriminated against Rivera on account of his gender (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v ARC XVI Inwood, Inc., 17 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2005]). The awards of back pay and compensatory damages are proper (see Executive Law § 297 [4] [c] [ii], [iii]; Matter of Mize v State Div. of Human Rights, 33 NY2d 53, 56 [1973]; ARC XVI Inwood, 17 AD3d at 239). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Renwick, Freedman, Román and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 491, 956 N.Y.S.2d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-v-neighborhood-youth-family-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack