Opinion
14419 Claim No. 134544 Case No. 2020-04844
10-21-2021
MEEHAN OF HUNTINGTON, INC., Claimant–Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Defendant–Appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for appellant. Zabell & Collotta, P.C., Bohemia (Saul D. Zabell of counsel), for respondent.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for appellant.
Zabell & Collotta, P.C., Bohemia (Saul D. Zabell of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Oing, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Court of Claims of the State of New York (Richard E. Sise, J.), entered October 13, 2020, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for malicious prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The actions of the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in investigating the disability discrimination complaint against claimant by one of its restaurant customers constituted quasi-judicial discretionary actions taken during the performance of governmental functions and are thus shielded from liability under the doctrine of governmental immunity ( Valdez v. City of New York, 18 N.Y.3d 69, 76, 936 N.Y.S.2d 587, 960 N.E.2d 356 [2011] ). DHR's human rights specialist interviewed the parties involved and examined documentary evidence, and her finding of probable cause to believe that claimant had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices "inherently entail[ed] the exercise of some discretion and judgment" ( Mon v. City of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 309, 313, 574 N.Y.S.2d 529, 579 N.E.2d 689 [1991] ; Tango v. Tulevech, 61 N.Y.2d 34, 41, 471 N.Y.S.2d 73, 459 N.E.2d 182 [1983] [discretionary or quasi-judicial acts involve "the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results"]).