From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emil v. Dewey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 24, 1980
49 N.Y.2d 968 (N.Y. 1980)

Summary

holding that when a party files a complaint with the NYSDHR regarding alleged discrimination, that party is barred from commencing an action in court regarding that discrimination

Summary of this case from White v. Home Depot Inc.

Opinion

Argued March 24, 1980

Decided April 24, 1980

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, ABRAHAM J. GELLINOFF, J.

Floyd Abrams and Peter N. Wang for appellant.

Leon Brickman for 79 East 79th Street Corporation, respondent.

Paul B. Marrow for Thomas E. Dewey, Jr., and others, respondents.

Ann Thacher Anderson and Alan J. Saks for State Division of Human Rights, amicus curiae.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The complaint should be dismissed pursuant to subdivision 9 of section 297 of the Executive Law. The record indicates, and it is conceded, that prior to commencing this action the plaintiff had filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. Although the plaintiff withdrew that complaint prior to any determination by the division, there is no showing this was done for administrative convenience. Under these circumstances the statute (Executive Law, § 297, subd 9) precludes the plaintiff from commencing an action in court based on the same incident.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Emil v. Dewey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Apr 24, 1980
49 N.Y.2d 968 (N.Y. 1980)

holding that when a party files a complaint with the NYSDHR regarding alleged discrimination, that party is barred from commencing an action in court regarding that discrimination

Summary of this case from White v. Home Depot Inc.

holding that, absent a clear statement that the denial was issued due to administrative convenience, a claim cannot be commenced under the New York Executive Law

Summary of this case from Napoletano v. Damianos Realty Group

holding that Executive Law § 297 precluded the Court from hearing a housing discrimination case because "prior to commencing this action the plaintiff had filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. Although the plaintiff withdrew that complaint prior to any determination by the division, there is no showing this was done for administrative convenience"

Summary of this case from Harris v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.

In Emil, the plaintiff had similarly withdrawn his SDHR complaint, but the New York Court of Appeals still concluded that he was barred from proceeding under § 296 because he had failed, as Fowler does, to make any showing that the SDHR dismissed his complaint for "administrative convenience".

Summary of this case from Ockimey v. Town of Hempstead
Case details for

Emil v. Dewey

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR D. EMIL, Appellant, v. THOMAS E. DEWEY, JR., et al., Respondents

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 24, 1980

Citations

49 N.Y.2d 968 (N.Y. 1980)
428 N.Y.S.2d 887
406 N.E.2d 744

Citing Cases

Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The first quoted sentence from § 297(9) specifies that, subject to the "administrative convenience"…

Ockimey v. Town of Hempstead

A resort to judicial action is precluded where the claimant has filed a complaint regarding the same…