Powell v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Powell v. New York State Division of Human Rights

59 A.D.2d 973, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14237

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 973 (Powell v. New York 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

Powell v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 59 A.D.2d 973, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion by respondent New York State Department of Transportation granted, without costs, and proceeding pursuant to section 298 of thé Executive Law dismissed as untimely. The motion papers indicate that petitioner failed to properly commence this proceeding by the filing and service of a notice of motion and petition within 30 days of the service of the appeal board order as required by the statute (Executive Law, § 298). In view of this, we have no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding (see e.g. Denson v Buffalo Evening News, 45 AD2d 931). Were we to reach the merits of this matter, we would confirm the determination of the Division of Human Rights dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause (see, e.g. Matter of Heron v Albany Law School, 57 AD2d 672). Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Motion by respondent New York State Department of Transportation granted, without costs, and proceeding pursuant to section 298 of thé Executive Law dismissed as untimely. The motion papers indicate that petitioner failed to properly commence this proceeding by the filing and service of a notice of motion and petition within 30 days of the service of the appeal board order as required by the statute (Executive Law, § 298). In view of this, we have no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding (see e.g. Denson v Buffalo Evening News, 45 AD2d 931). Were we to reach the merits of this matter, we would confirm the determination of the Division of Human Rights dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause (see, e.g. Matter of Heron v Albany Law School, 57 AD2d 672). Kane, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 973, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack