From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bentkowsky v. Tokio re Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1988
139 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

April 14, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).


Petitioner contends that she was terminated from her position as a coding clerk because she is a Sabbath-observant Orthodox Jew.

Although the evidence is conflicting, "discrimination is rarely so obvious or its practice so overt that recognition of it is instant and conclusive, it being accomplished usually by devious and subtle means". (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 183; State Div. of Human Rights v Kilian Mfg. Corp., 35 N.Y.2d 201, 209.)

While respondent claims that petitioner's job performance was unsatisfactory, in view of the sparseness of the record on this issue, the matter should be remanded for a public hearing at which petitioner will have an opportunity to present testimony and cross-examine witnesses.

Having considered this proceeding on its merits, we nevertheless point out that the order of transfer was improper. Where, as here, the Division has found no probable cause to believe that there has been an unlawful discriminatory practice and has not ordered a public hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a), the Supreme Court shall dispose of the matter. Only where a hearing has been held, shall the Supreme Court transfer the proceeding to the appropriate Appellate Division for disposition. (Executive Law § 298; 1985 N.Y. Legis Ann, at 147-148.)

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Asch, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Bentkowsky v. Tokio re Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1988
139 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Bentkowsky v. Tokio re Corporation

Case Details

Full title:DIANA BENTKOWSKY, Petitioner, v. TOKIO RE CORPORATION et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 14, 1988

Citations

139 A.D.2d 436 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Metz v. County of Suffolk

Specifically, petitioner alleges that it was unreasonable for the NYSDHR to require her to provide a list of…

Metz v. County of Suffolk

Petitioner had, in fact, previously on November 13, 2002 provided the NYSDHR with a list of positions in the…