Opinion
2018–13654 Index No 2876/18
10-14-2020
In the Matter of Jill S. MEYER, etc., Appellant, v. Helen Diane FOSTER, etc., et al., Respondents.
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and Seth M. Rokosky of counsel), for respondents.
Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and Seth M. Rokosky of counsel), for respondents.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 and CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated February 21, 2018, dismissing the petitioner's administrative complaint, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Diccia T. Pineda–Kirwan, J.), dated August 28, 2018. The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter SDHR) alleging that the State of New York Office of Mental Health, Creedmoor Psychiatric Center, and Caterina Grandi (hereinafter collectively the Creedmore respondents) unlawfully discriminated and retaliated against her. In a determination dated February 21, 2018, the SDHR dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding no probable cause to believe that the Creedmore respondents unlawfully discriminated or retaliated against the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding to review the SDHR's determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The petitioner appeals.
Where, as in this case, the SDHR renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the proper standard of review is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Lewis v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 163 A.D.3d 818, 81 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; Matter of Pastor v. Partnership for Children's Rights, 159 A.D.3d 910, 911, 70 N.Y.S.3d 65 ; Matter of Steinberg–Fisher v. North Shore Towers Apts., Inc., 149 A.D.3d 848, 850, 51 N.Y.S.3d 585 ; Matter of Gordon v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 126 A.D.3d 697, 698, 2 N.Y.S.3d 368 ). The SDHR's determination is entitled to considerable deference given its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims (see Matter of Lewis v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 163 A.D.3d 818, 81 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; Matter of Baird v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 A.D.3d 880, 881, 954 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; Matter of Camp v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 300 A.D.2d 481, 751 N.Y.S.2d 564 ). Moreover, the SDHR has broad discretion in conducting its investigations (see 9 NYCRR 465.6 ; Matter of Lewis v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 163 A.D.3d 818, 81 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; Matter of Sahni v. Foster, 145 A.D.3d 733, 734, 42 N.Y.S.3d 343 ; Matter of Cappuccia v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 140 A.D.3d 750, 751, 30 N.Y.S.3d 892 ; Matter of Vora v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 103 A.D.3d 739, 959 N.Y.S.2d 535 ).
Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record demonstrates that the SDHR conducted an adequate investigation of her complaint. The petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present her claim and supporting submissions, and to rebut the submissions of the Creedmore respondents in opposition to her complaint (see generally Matter of Baird v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 A.D.3d at 881, 954 N.Y.S.2d 213 ; Matter of Orosz v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 A.D.3d 798, 798–799, 930 N.Y.S.2d 288 ; Matter of Maltsev v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 31 A.D.3d 641, 817 N.Y.S.2d 906 ). The investigation was neither abbreviated nor one-sided. Since the record demonstrates that the SDHR's determination was neither arbitrary and capricious nor lacked a rational basis, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the petition and dismiss the proceeding on the merits (see Matter of Lewis v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 163 A.D.3d 818, 81 N.Y.S.3d 485 ; Matter of Pastor v. Partnership for Children's Rights, 159 A.D.3d at 911, 70 N.Y.S.3d 65 ; Matter of Sahni v. Foster, 145 A.D.3d at 734, 42 N.Y.S.3d 343 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.