From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 1995
222 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

December 18, 1995


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights that the respondent New York Seven-Up Bottling Company, Inc. (hereinafter 7-Up) did not unlawfully discriminate against the complainant Stanley Phillips because of his HIV-seropositive status is supported by substantial evidence. "It is peculiarly within the domain of the Commissioner, who is presumed to have special expertise in the matter, to assess whether the facts and the law support a finding of unlawful discrimination" ( Matter of Club Swamp Annex v White, 167 A.D.2d 400, 401; see, Matter of Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. v New York State Exec. Dept., 220 A.D.2d 668). There is ample evidence, medical and otherwise, in the hearing record to support the Commissioner's finding that the physical manifestations of the complainant's disability rendered him physically "unable to perform the job duties of any available position" with 7-Up ( see, Executive Law § 296 [a]; Matter of Antonsen v Ward, 77 N.Y.2d 506; Lawson v High Bar Wholesale Food Distribs., 217 A.D.2d 646). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Commissioner's findings. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 1995
222 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Phillips

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CLARISSA PHILLIPS, Petitioner, on Behalf of STANLEY…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 1995

Citations

222 A.D.2d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 92

Citing Cases

Energy v. Human

This proceeding by petitioner ensued. Determinations by the SDHR are "entitled to considerable deference due…