Tiffany & Co. v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tiffany & Co. v. Smith

224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1456

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 332 (Tiffany & Co. v. Smith) 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

Tiffany & Co. v. Smith, 224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent State Division of Human Rights dated November 23, 1994, which, inter alia, awarded respondent Smith back pay plus interest, and $300,000 for mental anguish and compensatory damages, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered on February 17, 1995) unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The time limitations set forth in Executive Law § 297 (2) (a) and (4) (a) are directory, not mandatory, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the delay in processing the complaint (see, Matter of 935 Nicholas Renting Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 223 AD2d 377). Claims arising from petitioner’s employees’ discriminatory conduct were not time-barred since there was continuing impact on the complainant (see, Mendoza v State Div. of Human Rights, 74 [333]*333AD2d 508, 509-510), and the constant, egregious, and blatant conduct warranted the relief awarded (cf., Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 181 AD2d 891, lv denied 80 NY2d 762; Sogg v American Airlines, 193 AD2d 153, 163, lv denied 83 NY2d 754, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 846). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent State Division of Human Rights dated November 23, 1994, which, inter alia, awarded respondent Smith back pay plus interest, and $300,000 for mental anguish and compensatory damages, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered on February 17, 1995) unanimously dismissed, without costs.

The time limitations set forth in Executive Law § 297 (2) (a) and (4) (a) are directory, not mandatory, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the delay in processing the complaint (see, Matter of 935 Nicholas Renting Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 223 AD2d 377). Claims arising from petitioner’s employees’ discriminatory conduct were not time-barred since there was continuing impact on the complainant (see, Mendoza v State Div. of Human Rights, 74 [333]*333AD2d 508, 509-510), and the constant, egregious, and blatant conduct warranted the relief awarded (cf., Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 181 AD2d 891, lv denied 80 NY2d 762; Sogg v American Airlines, 193 AD2d 153, 163, lv denied 83 NY2d 754, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 846). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-co-v-smith-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack