Peterborough Realty Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peterborough Realty Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

41 A.D.2d 631, 340 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 631 (Peterborough Realty Co. v. State Division of Human Rights) 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

Peterborough Realty Co. v. State Division of Human Rights, 41 A.D.2d 631, 340 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated November 14, 1972, affirming an order of the State Division of Human Rights, unanimously modified, on the law, to limit application of the directive to petitioner to the-premises at which the subject housing discrimination took place, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. On this, record, there is no doubt that discrimination by. reason of race, as charged against petitioners, did take place, and the directive is appropriate as to the subject premises. There is, however, no rational relation, insofar as the directive is concerned, between the offense charged and any other premises owned by petitioners. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewieh, Nunez, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ. *

(Republished)

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

Determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated November 14, 1972, affirming an order of the State Division of Human Rights, unanimously modified, on the law, to limit application of the directive to petitioner to the-premises at which the subject housing discrimination took place, and otherwise confirmed, without costs and without disbursements. On this, record, there is no doubt that discrimination by. reason of race, as charged against petitioners, did take place, and the directive is appropriate as to the subject premises. There is, however, no rational relation, insofar as the directive is concerned, between the offense charged and any other premises owned by petitioners. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewieh, Nunez, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ. *

(Republished)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 631, 340 N.Y.S.2d 859, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterborough-realty-co-v-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1973.