Sullivan v. State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sullivan v. State Division of Human Rights

73 A.D.2d 946, 424 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9861

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 946 (Sullivan v. 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

Sullivan v. State Division of Human Rights, 73 A.D.2d 946, 424 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board dated October 25, 1978, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights dated June 6, 1977, which found that petitioners had committed an unlawful discriminatory practice. Petition granted, order annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint charging an unlawful discriminatory practice is dismissed. There is no evidence to support the determination that the refusal of the Sullivans (the contract vendors) to modify the executed contract of sale to increase the time for the contract vendees to obtain a mortgage commitment was "because of the race, creed, color [or] national origin” (Executive Law, § 296, subd 5, par [a], cl [1]) of one of the two contract vendees, or because the vendees were a "mixed couple”. Moreover, the respondent State Division of Human Rights was in error in finding that [947]*947petitioner Eckhardt, the attorney for the Sullivans, “aided and abetted the aforesaid discriminatory acts” of the Sullivans merely because he conveyed to the attorney for the contract vendees the refusal of his clients to modify the contract of sale (see Hahn v Wylie, 54 AD2d 629; Gifford v Harley, 62 AD2d 5). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board dated October 25, 1978, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights dated June 6, 1977, which found that petitioners had committed an unlawful discriminatory practice. Petition granted, order annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint charging an unlawful discriminatory practice is dismissed. There is no evidence to support the determination that the refusal of the Sullivans (the contract vendors) to modify the executed contract of sale to increase the time for the contract vendees to obtain a mortgage commitment was "because of the race, creed, color [or] national origin” (Executive Law, § 296, subd 5, par [a], cl [1]) of one of the two contract vendees, or because the vendees were a "mixed couple”. Moreover, the respondent State Division of Human Rights was in error in finding that [947]*947petitioner Eckhardt, the attorney for the Sullivans, “aided and abetted the aforesaid discriminatory acts” of the Sullivans merely because he conveyed to the attorney for the contract vendees the refusal of his clients to modify the contract of sale (see Hahn v Wylie, 54 AD2d 629; Gifford v Harley, 62 AD2d 5). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 946, 424 N.Y.S.2d 25, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack