IN RE EAST RIVER HOUSING CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, res-res

12236. IN RE EAST RIVER HOUSING CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, res-res — Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Dani Schwartz of counsel), for ap — Carolyn J. Downey, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered October 24, 2013, which, in this article 78 proceeding, denied the petition to annul and vacate the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated July 14, 2003, dismissing a housing discrimination complaint brought against petitioner East River Housing Corporation (East River), on the ground of administrative convenience, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and respondent's determination dismissing the complaint on the ground of administrative convenience annulled.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

12236. IN RE EAST RIVER HOUSING CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, res-res — Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Dani Schwartz of counsel), for ap — Carolyn J. Downey, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered October 24, 2013, which, in this article 78 proceeding, denied the petition to annul and vacate the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated July 14, 2003, dismissing a housing discrimination complaint brought against petitioner East River Housing Corporation (East River), on the ground of administrative convenience, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and respondent’s determination dismissing the complaint on the ground of administrative convenience annulled.

DHR’s dismissal of a housing discrimination complaint brought by a tenant against East River, on the ground of administrative convenience, was “purely arbitrary” and issued in contravention of the agency’s own rules (see 9 NYCRR 465.5[e]; Matter of Pan Am. World Airways v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 61 NY2d 542, 547 [1984]; Eastman Chem. Prods. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 162 AD2d 157, 158 [1st Dept 1990]). This determination was made after DHR completed its investigation of the complaint, made factual findings, and dismissed the complaint upon a finding that there was no probable cause to believe that East River had engaged in the complained of discriminatory conduct. DHR’s stated grounds for the administrative convenience dismissal (ACD), to wit, 1. that noticing the complaint for a hearing would be undesirable, 2. that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to reactivate its complaint concerning the same grievance and continue the investigation, and 3. that processing the complaint would not advance the State’s human rights goals, cannot be rationally applied to the instant circumstances.

IN RE EAST RIVER HOUSING CORPORATION, pet-ap, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal