Peck v. Sony Music Corporation
This text of 221 A.D.2d 157 (Peck v. Sony Music Corporation) 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.
Opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered August 18, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendant Nevius’ motion to [158]*158dismiss the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Executive Law § 296 (6) and (7) provide that an individual may be held liable for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct. Patrowich v Chemical Bank (63 NY2d 541) is not a bar to maintenance of the action. Here, there are issues of fact as to defendant-appellant’s liability under Executive Law § 296 (6) and (7) as an aider and abettor of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
221 A.D.2d 157, 632 N.Y.S.2d 963, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-sony-music-corporation-nyappdiv-1995.