Wolchok v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolchok v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

83 A.D.2d 850, 441 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15234

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

DecidedAugust 10, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 83 A.D.2d 850 (Wolchok v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board) 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

Wolchok v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board, 83 A.D.2d 850, 441 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated October 29, 1980, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights which dismissed the complaint upon a finding of no probable cause. Petition granted to the extent that the orders of the appeal board and division are annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings consistent herewith. The record before us indicates that the State Division’s determination was made following an inadequate investigation of petitioner’s claims. It appears that petitioner’s “confrontation conference”, at which she should have had a full and complete opportunity to confront and rebut the respondent employer’s answer, was severely shortened, despite her objection, due to a subsequently scheduled conference which apparently could not be adjourned. There is also some evidence in the record which tends to indicate that the underlying investigation may have been somewhat onesided. In the past, determinations of no probable cause have been overturned as capricious where the underlying investigation was onesided and/or abbreviated (see Matter of Gregory v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 64 AD2d 775; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Drug Abuse Control Comm., 59 AD2d 332, 336; see, also, Long Is. R.R. v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 AD2d 924). Under the circumstances at bar the same result is required. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the State Division for further investigation and a complete confrontation conference, so that there may be a proper determination as to whether probable cause exists. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Bracken, 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 29, 1980, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights which dismissed the complaint upon a finding of no probable cause. Petition granted to the extent that the orders of the appeal board and division are annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings consistent herewith. The record before us indicates that the State Division’s determination was made following an inadequate investigation of petitioner’s claims. It appears that petitioner’s “confrontation conference”, at which she should have had a full and complete opportunity to confront and rebut the respondent employer’s answer, was severely shortened, despite her objection, due to a subsequently scheduled conference which apparently could not be adjourned. There is also some evidence in the record which tends to indicate that the underlying investigation may have been somewhat onesided. In the past, determinations of no probable cause have been overturned as capricious where the underlying investigation was onesided and/or abbreviated (see Matter of Gregory v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 64 AD2d 775; State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Drug Abuse Control Comm., 59 AD2d 332, 336; see, also, Long Is. R.R. v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 AD2d 924). Under the circumstances at bar the same result is required. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the State Division for further investigation and a complete confrontation conference, so that there may be a proper determination as to whether probable cause exists. Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 850, 441 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolchok-v-new-york-state-human-rights-appeal-board-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack