Samper v. University of Rochester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samper v. University of Rochester

144 A.D.2d 940

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

DocketAppeal No. 3

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 940 (Samper v. University of Rochester) 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

Samper v. University of Rochester, 144 A.D.2d 940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ [941]*941cause of action alleging discrimination under Civil Rights Law §§ 40-c and 40-d against defendants University of Rochester, Strong Memorial Hospital, and Ronald A. Gabel, M.D. Since plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to sustain a cause of action under the Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]) against these defendants, the cause of action under the Civil Rights Law must likewise be sustained (see, People v Hamilton, 125 AD2d 1000, 1001). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — renewal.) Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ [941]*941cause of action alleging discrimination under Civil Rights Law §§ 40-c and 40-d against defendants University of Rochester, Strong Memorial Hospital, and Ronald A. Gabel, M.D. Since plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to sustain a cause of action under the Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]) against these defendants, the cause of action under the Civil Rights Law must likewise be sustained (see, People v Hamilton, 125 AD2d 1000, 1001). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wesley, J. — renewal.) Present — Doerr, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samper-v-university-of-rochester-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack