Opinion
2017-09499 Index 9061/15
09-01-2021
In the Matter of David Ackerman, appellant, v. New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., respondents.
David Ackerman, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se. Caroline J. Downey, Bronx, NY (Aaron M. Woskoff of counsel), for respondent New York State Division of Human Rights.
David Ackerman, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.
Caroline J. Downey, Bronx, NY (Aaron M. Woskoff of counsel), for respondent New York State Division of Human Rights.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 and CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights dated May 18, 2015, dismissing the petitioner's administrative complaint upon a finding that there was no probable cause to believe that the respondents Sarah Berkowitz and Concepts of Independence, Inc., engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Peter P. Sweeney, J.), dated July 5, 2017. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Where, as in this case, the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the DHR) renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the proper standard of review is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Pastor v Partnership for Children's Rights, 159 A.D.3d 910, 911; Matter of Steinberg-Fisher v North Shore Towers Apts., Inc., 149 A.D.3d 848, 850; Matter of Gordon v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 126 A.D.3d 697, 698) . Here, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the determination of no probable cause made by the DHR was not arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis in the record.
Moreover, the DHR has broad discretion to determine its method of investigating complaints (see 9 NYCRR 465.6[b]; Matter of Horowitz v Foster, 180 A.D.3d 783, 784-785; Matter of Camp v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 300 A.D.2d 481, 481-482; Lee v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 111 A.D.2d 748, 749; Matter of Verderber v Roechling Steel, 110 A.D.2d 705, 705-706). Here, the record demonstrates that the DHR conducted an adequate investigation of the petitioner's complaint that was neither abbreviated nor one-sided (see Matter of Lewis v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 163 A.D.3d 818, 819). The petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present his claim and supporting submissions, and to rebut the submissions made in opposition to his complaint (see generally Matter of Baird v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 A.D.3d 880, 881; Matter of Orosz v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 A.D.3d 798, 798-799; Matter of Maltsev v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 31 A.D.3d 641; Lee v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 111 A.D.2d at 749).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
MASTRO, J.P., DUFFY, BRATHWAITE NELSON and DOWLING, JJ., concur.