Rizcallah v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizcallah v. New York State Division of Human Rights

285 A.D.2d 372, 727 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7368

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

DecidedJuly 12, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 372 (Rizcallah 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

Rizcallah v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 285 A.D.2d 372, 727 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered November 5, 1999, which granted the petition, annulled respondents’ determination, dated March 4, 1999, which dismissed petitioner’s discrimination complaint, and remanded the matter to respondent Division for a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the factual differences, we affirm essentially for the reasons stated in Sauer v New York State Div. of Human Rights (285 AD2d 372 [decided herewith]), namely that Delta’s unsigned and unsworn “position statement” was inadequate to rebut petitioner’s evidence, which, taken as a whole, was sufficient to warrant a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered November 5, 1999, which granted the petition, annulled respondents’ determination, dated March 4, 1999, which dismissed petitioner’s discrimination complaint, and remanded the matter to respondent Division for a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Despite the factual differences, we affirm essentially for the reasons stated in Sauer v New York State Div. of Human Rights (285 AD2d 372 [decided herewith]), namely that Delta’s unsigned and unsworn “position statement” was inadequate to rebut petitioner’s evidence, which, taken as a whole, was sufficient to warrant a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 372, 727 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizcallah-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack