From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. DHR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 29, 2000
269 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

February 29, 2000

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered January 8, 1999, which denied petitioner employers' application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit respondent human rights agency from taking any further proceedings on a sexual harassment complaint filed against petitioners, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Barbara T.R. Zimet, for Petitioners-Appellants.

Michael K. Swirsky, for Respondents-Respondents.

WILLIAMS, J.P., WALLACH, SAXE, BUCKLEY, JJ.


Petitioners' argument that a writ of prohibition is warranted because they are not employers within the meaning of Executive Law § 292(5) and the complainant is not an employee within the meaning of Executive Law § 292(6) was properly rejected. Petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars this proceeding (see, Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 47 N.Y.2d 789; Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. DHR

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 29, 2000
269 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. DHR

Case Details

Full title:KEN EDRICH LEATHER ACCESSORIES, INC., et al., Petitioners-Appellants, For…

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

Date published: Feb 29, 2000

Citations

269 A.D.2d 334 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

Newfield Central School District v. New York State Division of Human Rights

nt a body or officer acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity from proceeding or threatening to…

Peek v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Moreover, prohibition is not available to challenge procedural or substantive errors alleged to have occurred…