From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Div. of Human Rights v. Am. Can Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1980
78 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

November 13, 1980

Present — Cardamone, J.P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.


Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: The Human Rights Appeal Board, without reaching the merits, dismissed petitioner's appeal from the division's order of no probable cause because the appeal board found the division delayed more than 180 days in investigating and determining his complaint of unlawful discrimination (see Executive Law, § 297, subd 2). All the parties to this proceeding concede, and we agree, that the statutory time limits are directory and not mandatory and that the appeal board erred in dismissing the appeal on these procedural grounds (see Matter of Sarkisian Bros. v State Div. of Human Rights, 48 N.Y.2d 816; State Div. of Human Rights v Pennwalt Corp., Pharm. Div., 66 A.D.2d 1006). Nevertheless, we have examined the merits and the contentions of the petitioner as the parties request and we confirm the division's finding of no probable cause (see Matter of Callaghan v State Div. of Human Rights, 72 A.D.2d 679). In view of the evidence in the record of petitioner's unsatisfactory performance, respondent American Can Company was not guilty of unlawful discrimination in discharging him two weeks after he was hired.


Summaries of

State Div. of Human Rights v. Am. Can Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 13, 1980
78 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

State Div. of Human Rights v. Am. Can Co.

Case Details

Full title:STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, on the Complaint of GERALD JOHNSON…

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

Date published: Nov 13, 1980

Citations

78 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

State Division of Human Rights v. Oneida, Ltd.

Although the Division's investigation was not conducted within the time limits prescribed by law (Executive…

State Div. of H.R. v. Syracuse Univ. School

Memorandum: Petitioner alleges that respondent discriminated against her based on her creed. We find that the…