From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Resnik v. New York State Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1994
204 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 2, 1994


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination by the Commissioner that the respondent Pall Biomedical Products Corp. had not unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner on the basis of her pregnancy is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 N.Y.2d 411, 417; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176). There is evidence in the record that the petitioner misrepresented her hours on a time card, that she refused to assist her co-workers in answering the telephones, and that she kept irregular work hours (see, Matter of Periana v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 174 A.D.2d 745). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Resnik v. New York State Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 2, 1994
204 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Resnik v. New York State Division

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NIKKI RESNIK, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

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

Date published: May 2, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 330 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
611 N.Y.S.2d 270

Citing Cases

Handelman v. Siegelman

Plaintiff's version, even if undisputed, does not give rise to a claim of sexual discrimination. An employer…