From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ebasco Services v. Div. of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1996
234 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

December 10, 1996.

Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights dated March 24, 1995, which found that petitioner discriminated against respondent Foust in his employment, and awarded him back pay, and compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000, with related relief, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Richard Lowe, III, J.], entered on or about November 16, 1995), is dismissed, without costs.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


The challenged determination is based on substantial evidence (see, New York Tel. Co. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 222 AD2d 234, 235-236), and although a contrary decision may arguably be reasonable, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner Designee (see, Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 417). The award of $5,000 in compensatory damages is reasonable (see, Port Washington Police Dist. v State Div. of Human Rights, 221 AD2d 639, lv denied 88 NY2d 807). We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

Ebasco Services v. Div. of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 10, 1996
234 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Ebasco Services v. Div. of Human Rights

Case Details

Full title:EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1996

Citations

234 A.D.2d 80 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
651 N.Y.S.2d 297

Citing Cases

White v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights

Substantial evidence consists of "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support…

Ebasco Services v. Div. of Human Rights

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ. We find that the challenged…