After some procedural parrying on the part of the parties (see Matter of Maloff, 45 A.D.2d 834), Special Term rendered a decision on the merits. It sustained the factual finding of retaliation (Item No. 4 of commission's order); vacated Items Nos. 1, 2, and 3; and stayed enforcement of Items Nos. 5 and 6. We concur in the holding of Special Term that the city Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction to entertain complaints alleging discrimination by the board (see Matter of Maloff v City Comm. on Human Rights, 46 A.D.2d 852, affd 38 N.Y.2d 329), and we also affirm the vacatur of Items Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the reasons stated by Special Term. However, we disagree with the conclusion of Special Term that the award of damages should be stayed pending completion of review by the Chancellor's committee pursuant to section 105a of the by-laws of the New York City Board of Education. The damages awarded to Schriber were based upon the finding of retaliation and not upon the unsatisfactory rating which is now subject to section 105 review. Since we are confirming the finding of retaliation, there is no need to stay the award of damages pending review of the propriety of the rating.
These proceedings were consolidated, resulting in the judgment presently being appealed. We note at the outset that the commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint of discrimination (Matter of Maloff v City Comm. on Human Rights, 46 A.D.2d 852, affd 38 N.Y.2d 329). It must be further noted that the educational reasons for discharge of Anilyan were properly referred to a hearing pursuant to the by-laws of the board (§ 105). The commission, however, found retaliation in that Maloff specifically stated that one reason for the unsatisfactory rating given to Anilyan was her previous complaint made to the commission.
DISCUSSION When, as here, the petitioners seek judicial review of an order of the Commission, an Article 78 proceeding cannot be maintained (Matter ofMaloff v. City Commn. on Human Rights , 45 AD2d 834 [1st Dept 1974], on remand , 46 AD2d 852 [1st Dept 1974], affd 38 NY2d 329 [1975] ; Matter of Shahbain v. Commission on Human Rights , 50 Misc 3d 1213[A] [Sup Ct, NY County 2016] ). However, Section 8—123 (f) of the Administrative Code provides that "[t]he jurisdiction of the supreme court shall be exclusive and its judgment and order shall be final, subject to review by the appellate division of the Supreme Court and the court of appeals in the same manner and form and with the same effect as provided for appeals from a judgment in a special proceeding."
This argument is unacceptable. "Legislative enactments in this area have long evinced a general intent to accord parallel or overlapping remedies against discrimination" (Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47; in accord Matter of Maloff v City Comm. on Human Rights, 46 A.D.2d 852). The situation herein does not warrant the granting of the extraordinary remedy of prohibition.