Torres v. Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Torres v. Division of Human Rights

50 A.D.2d 572, 375 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12340

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 572 (Torres v. 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

Torres v. Division of Human Rights, 50 A.D.2d 572, 375 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12340 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State [573]*573Human Rights Appeal Board, dated March 25, 1975, which affirmed a determination of the State Division of Human Rights, dated May 10, 1974, which dismissed the complaint upon a finding of no probable cause. Order confirmed and cross application to dismiss the petition granted, without costs. We do not find that either the State Division of Human Rights or the State Human Rights Appeal Board was arbitrary or capricious or abused its discretion. In addition, there were no unresolved questions of fact which required a hearing. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, 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 [573]*573Human Rights Appeal Board, dated March 25, 1975, which affirmed a determination of the State Division of Human Rights, dated May 10, 1974, which dismissed the complaint upon a finding of no probable cause. Order confirmed and cross application to dismiss the petition granted, without costs. We do not find that either the State Division of Human Rights or the State Human Rights Appeal Board was arbitrary or capricious or abused its discretion. In addition, there were no unresolved questions of fact which required a hearing. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 572, 375 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1975.