From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of City of White Plains v. Kramarsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 16, 1979
71 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Opinion

July 16, 1979


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to prohibit the appellants from holding a hearing on the complaints of discrimination of 10 Black police officers of the City of White Plains Police Department, in which the appellants moved to dismiss the proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered March 30, 1979, which, inter alia, denied the motion and granted the petition. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits. The court's grant of prohibition was erroneous. That remedy does not lie to interfere with proceedings before the State Division of Human Rights, where the basis of the petition is the failure of the division to comply with the time limitations of section 297 Exec. of the Executive Law (see Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 62 A.D.2d 36, affd 47 N.Y.2d 789). Suozzi, J.P., O'Connor, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of City of White Plains v. Kramarsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 16, 1979
71 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)
Case details for

Matter of City of White Plains v. Kramarsky

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the CITY OF WHITE PLAINS et al., Respondents, v. WERNER…

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

Date published: Jul 16, 1979

Citations

71 A.D.2d 639 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)

Citing Cases

Town of North Greenbush v. New York State Division of Human Rights

We disagree. The drastic remedy of prohibition does not lie to interfere with proceedings before the State…

Board of Education v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The court did not discuss the issue of substantial prejudice, as the Appellate Division had, and simply said…