Palmer v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

New York Court of Appeals

Palmer v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

390 N.E.2d 1174, 47 N.Y.2d 734, 417 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2009

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 390 N.E.2d 1174 (Palmer v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palmer v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 390 N.E.2d 1174, 47 N.Y.2d 734, 417 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2009 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board reinstated, and the petition for enforcement granted.

In this proceeding petitioners challenge a finding of the Human Rights Appeal Board that they engaged in unlawful racial discrimination. The Appellate Division, upon review of the record, found the decision of the board unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree with this conclusion.

Complainant’s testimony, if credited by the board, establishes that the refusal of the trailer park owners to consummate the trailer transaction with him was motivated by racial bias — a distaste for an interracial relationship. Indeed, complainant related that one of the owners had made racially disparaging statements and had expressly refused to close the deal due to racial consideration. Inasmuch as the board was free to accept this evidence, as it obviously chose to do, we cannot say that the record as a whole lacks substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176).

We likewise are unable to disturb the award of damages to complainant for the mental anguish he suffered. On the present record the board could have concluded that race-related comments concerning complainant were uttered in the presence of petitioners’ employees, causing complainant humiliation and ultimately leading to his treatment by a physician. In view of the circumstances and the important public policy to be served in these cases, the award of damages must stand (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, supra, at p 184).

We have examined and considered petitioners’ remaining contentions, and conclude they lack merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board reinstated, and the petition for enforcement granted.

In this proceeding petitioners challenge a finding of the Human Rights Appeal Board that they engaged in unlawful racial discrimination. The Appellate Division, upon review of the record, found the decision of the board unsupported by substantial evidence. We disagree with this conclusion.

Complainant’s testimony, if credited by the board, establishes that the refusal of the trailer park owners to consummate the trailer transaction with him was motivated by racial bias — a distaste for an interracial relationship. Indeed, complainant related that one of the owners had made racially disparaging statements and had expressly refused to close the deal due to racial consideration. Inasmuch as the board was free to accept this evidence, as it obviously chose to do, we cannot say that the record as a whole lacks substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176).

We likewise are unable to disturb the award of damages to complainant for the mental anguish he suffered. On the present record the board could have concluded that race-related comments concerning complainant were uttered in the presence of petitioners’ employees, causing complainant humiliation and ultimately leading to his treatment by a physician. In view of the circumstances and the important public policy to be served in these cases, the award of damages must stand (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, supra, at p 184).

We have examined and considered petitioners’ remaining contentions, and conclude they lack merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 N.E.2d 1174, 47 N.Y.2d 734, 417 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-new-york-state-human-rights-appeal-board-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack