Opinion
2017–03105 Index No. 15156/15
07-18-2018
In the Matter of Andriana LEWIS, appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., respondents.
Glass Krakower LLP, New York, N.Y. (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for appellant. Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barbara D. Goldberg and Gregory B. Reilly of counsel), for respondent Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home.
Glass Krakower LLP, New York, N.Y. (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for appellant.
Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barbara D. Goldberg and Gregory B. Reilly of counsel), for respondent Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights dated October 28, 2015, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered February 14, 2017. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In May 2015, the petitioner filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the DHR) against her former employer, the respondent Jamaica Hospital Nursing Home (hereinafter JHNH), alleging that JHNH unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against her. In a determination dated October 28, 2015, the DHR dismissed the complaint, finding no probable cause to believe that JHNH unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the DHR's determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The petitioner appeals, and we affirm.
Where, as in this case, 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, 70 N.Y.S.3d 65 ; Matter of Steinberg–Fisher v. North Shore Towers Apts., Inc., 149 A.D.3d 848, 850, 51 N.Y.S.3d 585 ; Matter of Gordon v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 126 A.D.3d 697, 698, 2 N.Y.S.3d 368 ). The DHR's determination is entitled to considerable deference given its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims (see Matter of Baird v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 A.D.3d 880, 881, 954 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; Matter of Camp v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 300 A.D.2d 481, 482, 751 N.Y.S.2d 564 ). Moreover, the DHR has broad discretion in conducting its investigations (see 9 NYCRR 465.6 ; Matter of Sahni v. Foster, 145 A.D.3d 733, 734, 42 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Cappuccia v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 140 A.D.3d 750, 751, 30 N.Y.S.3d 892 ; Matter of Vora v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 103 A.D.3d 739, 959 N.Y.S.2d 535 ).
Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record demonstrates that the DHR conducted an adequate investigation of her complaint that was neither abbreviated nor one-sided. The petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present her claim and supporting submissions, and to rebut the submissions of JHNH in opposition to her complaint (see generally Matter of Baird v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 A.D.3d at 881, 954 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; Matter of Orosz v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 A.D.3d 798, 798–799, 930 N.Y.S.2d 288 ; Matter of Maltsev v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 31 A.D.3d 641, 817 N.Y.S.2d 906 ; Lee v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 111 A.D.2d 748, 749, 490 N.Y.S.2d 242 ). Furthermore, contrary to the petitioner's contention, a prior administrative determination regarding an application by the petitioner for unemployment insurance benefits did not preclude the determination at issue herein (see Labor Law § 623[2] ; Matter of Strong v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 62 A.D.3d 592, 593, 880 N.Y.S.2d 39 ; Wooten v. New York City Dept. of Gen. Servs., 207 A.D.2d 754, 617 N.Y.S.2d 3 ). Since the record demonstrates that the DHR's determination was neither arbitrary and capricious nor lacked a rational basis, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits (see Matter of Pastor v. Partnership for Children's Rights, 159 A.D.3d at 911, 70 N.Y.S.3d 65 ; Matter of Sahni v. Foster, 145 A.D.3d at 734, 42 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Cappuccia v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 140 A.D.3d at 751, 30 N.Y.S.3d 892 ).
MASTRO, J.P., RIVERA, AUSTIN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.