Tenenbaum v. Jackson Surrey Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tenenbaum v. Jackson Surrey Co.

111 A.D.2d 752, 489 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49994

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

DecidedJune 3, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 752 (Tenenbaum v. Jackson Surrey 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

Tenenbaum v. Jackson Surrey Co., 111 A.D.2d 752, 489 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49994 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated June 17, 1983, which, following a hearing after remand, determined that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent Jackson Surrey Co. was guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment, based on age.

[753]*753Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination by the State Division of Human Rights is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole and was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion (see, Executive Law § 298; State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs, v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276, 284; Matter of Board of Educ. v New York State Div. of Human Rights [Burns], 56 NY2d 257, 261; Matter of Hickman v Roslyn Air Natl. Guard, 99 AD2d 837). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated June 17, 1983, which, following a hearing after remand, determined that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent Jackson Surrey Co. was guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment, based on age.

[753]*753Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination by the State Division of Human Rights is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole and was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion (see, Executive Law § 298; State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs, v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276, 284; Matter of Board of Educ. v New York State Div. of Human Rights [Burns], 56 NY2d 257, 261; Matter of Hickman v Roslyn Air Natl. Guard, 99 AD2d 837). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 752, 489 N.Y.S.2d 863, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenenbaum-v-jackson-surrey-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack