Rodriguez-Abad v. Hurst

3 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. National Broadcasting Co.

    553 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1977)   Cited 129 times
    Arguing that res judicata should not apply because the applicable standard of review prevented the state court from "conduct[ing] a de novo inquiry into the merits of plaintiff's claim"

    Mayo v. Hopeman Lumber Mfg. Co., 33 A.D.2d 310, 313, 307 N.Y.S.2d 691, 695 (4th Dep't. 1970). Accord, e. g., New York State Division of Human Rights v. Board of Education, Olean Public Schools, 46 A.D.2d 483, 363 N.Y.S.2d 370 (4th Dep't. 1975); Rodriguez-Abad v. Hurst, 49 A.D.2d 115, 373 N.Y.S.2d 583 (1st Dep't. 1975); Tenenbaum v. State Division of Human Rights, 50 A.D.2d 257, 376 N.Y.S.2d 542 (1st Dep't. 1975); Pember v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 50 A.D.2d 903, 377 N.Y.S.2d 554 (2d Dep't. 1975). Moreover, in making this determination, the State Division must give "full credence . . . to the complainant's version of the events."

  2. Matter of Robertson v. State of New York

    240 A.D.2d 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    Here, the petitioner presented witnesses who also submitted affidavits tending to support his claim of discrimination. A question of fact was presented which required a public hearing, and the determination of SDHR that no probable cause existed to believe that an unlawful discriminatory practice had occurred was therefore arbitrary and capricious (see, Matter of Sayers v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., supra; State Div. of Human Rights v. Blanchette, 73 A.D.2d 820; Matter of Rodriguez-Abad v. Hurst, 49 A.D.2d 115; Mayo v. Hopeman Lbr. Mfg. Co., supra). Pizzuto, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

  3. Tenenbaum v. State Division of Human Rights

    50 A.D.2d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)   Cited 11 times

    "For the Division to dismiss [a] complaint under such circumstances it must appear virtually that as a matter of law the complaint lacks merit." (Mayo v Hopeman Lbr. Mfg. Co., 33 A.D.2d 310, 313; Matter of Rodriguez-Abad v Hurst, 49 A.D.2d 115.) Here, however, the record indicates that there were unresolved factual issues which could not be determined without according petitioner a complete and unequivocal right to be present at the preliminary conference. (Cf.