State Division of Human Rights v. American Can Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Division of Human Rights v. American Can Co.

78 A.D.2d 1005, 433 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13781

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 1005 (State Division of Human Rights v. American Can Co.) 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

State Division of Human Rights v. American Can Co., 78 A.D.2d 1005, 433 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Human Rights Appeal Board, without reaching the merits, dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the division’s order of no probable cause because the appeal board found the division delayed more than 180 days in investigating and determining his complaint of unlawful discrimination (see Executive Law, § 297, subd 2). All the parties to this proceeding concede, and we agree, that the statutory time limits are directory and not mandatory and that the appeal board erred in dismissing the appeal on these procedural grounds (see Matter of Sarkisian Bros, v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816; State Div. of Human Rights v Pennwalt Corp., Pharm. Div., 66 AD2d 1006). Nevertheless, we have examined the merits and the contentions of the petitioner as the parties request and we confirm the division’s finding of no probable cause (see Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights, 72 AD2d 679). In view of the evidence in the record of petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance, respondent American Can Company was not guilty of unlawful discrimination in discharging him two weeks after he was hired. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Human Rights Appeal Board, without reaching the merits, dismissed petitioner’s appeal from the division’s order of no probable cause because the appeal board found the division delayed more than 180 days in investigating and determining his complaint of unlawful discrimination (see Executive Law, § 297, subd 2). All the parties to this proceeding concede, and we agree, that the statutory time limits are directory and not mandatory and that the appeal board erred in dismissing the appeal on these procedural grounds (see Matter of Sarkisian Bros, v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 NY2d 816; State Div. of Human Rights v Pennwalt Corp., Pharm. Div., 66 AD2d 1006). Nevertheless, we have examined the merits and the contentions of the petitioner as the parties request and we confirm the division’s finding of no probable cause (see Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights, 72 AD2d 679). In view of the evidence in the record of petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance, respondent American Can Company was not guilty of unlawful discrimination in discharging him two weeks after he was hired. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 1005, 433 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-division-of-human-rights-v-american-can-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack