Sukhnanan v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sukhnanan v. New York City Commission on Human Rights

189 A.D.2d 684

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 19, 1993·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), entered November 13, 1990, which denied a petition to set aside a determination of the Human Rights Commission, dismissing petitioner’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was hired as a porter by Owners Maintenance Corporation (OMC) and was discharged approximately 4 years later because of claimed unexcused absences. Approximately 4 years after the discharge, petitioner brought this proceeding, alleging he was discharged solely because he sought promotion to the position of security guard, a promotion which was denied because of racial discrimination.

It is within the discretion of the respondent to decide how to conduct its investigation (Matter of Chirgotis v Mobil Oil Corp., 128 AD2d 400), and we find that under the circumstances, respondent conducted a sufficient investigation and provided petitioner with a full opportunity to present his claim. We further find that petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and accordingly, respondent’s determination was proper. Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), entered November 13, 1990, which denied a petition to set aside a determination of the Human Rights Commission, dismissing petitioner’s complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was hired as a porter by Owners Maintenance Corporation (OMC) and was discharged approximately 4 years later because of claimed unexcused absences. Approximately 4 years after the discharge, petitioner brought this proceeding, alleging he was discharged solely because he sought promotion to the position of security guard, a promotion which was denied because of racial discrimination.

It is within the discretion of the respondent to decide how to conduct its investigation (Matter of Chirgotis v Mobil Oil Corp., 128 AD2d 400), and we find that under the circumstances, respondent conducted a sufficient investigation and provided petitioner with a full opportunity to present his claim. We further find that petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and accordingly, respondent’s determination was proper. Concur— Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Sukhnanan v. New York City Commission on Human Rights, 189 A.D.2d 684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

189 A.D.2d 684 (Sukhnanan v. New York City Commission on Human Rights) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related