Matter of Hurwitz v. New York City Comm

Full title: In the Matter of WILLIAM HURWITZ, Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY COMMISSION…

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

Date published: Mar 27, 1990

159 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

553 N.Y.S.2d 323

Opinion

March 27, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).

Inasmuch as no administrative hearing has been held on the issue of whether appellant's dental office is a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of the Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-102 [9]) and the agency's determination is ultimately subject to judicial review, injunctive relief through a writ of prohibition is not an appropriate remedy (Matter of Walston Co. v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 41 A.D.2d 238, 241). Appellant's claim that the State Education Law, regulating the practice of certain professions, including dentistry, has preempted local action in this area was properly rejected by the Supreme Court (Matter of Maloff v City Commn. on Human Rights, 38 N.Y.2d 329, 333).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Milonas, Asch and Ellerin, JJ.