Pajooh v. State Division of Human Rights

82 A.D.3d 609, 918 N.Y.2d 725
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 2011·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The challenged no probable cause determination was rationally based and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-113 [1998]). DHR has broad discretion in determining the method to be employed in investigating a claim, and the record shows that the investigation in this case was not “abbreviated or one-sided” (Matter of Pascual v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 37 AD3d 215, 216 [2007]; see also McFarland, 241 AD2d at 111-113).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, PJ., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Pajooh v. State Division of Human Rights, 82 A.D.3d 609, 918 N.Y.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

82 A.D.3d 609 (Pajooh v. State Division of Human Rights) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pajooh v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Sanitation
547 F. App'x 73 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Jian Hua Tan v. New York City Transit Authority
105 A.D.3d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Baird v. New York State Division of Human Rights
100 A.D.3d 880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)