From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herbert v. Kirkland

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2011
90 A.D.3d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-12-20

In the Matter of Arthur J. HERBERT, petitioner, v. Galen D. KIRKLAND, etc., et al., respondents.

Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for petitioner. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Douglas P. Catalano and Neil G. Sparber of counsel), for respondent New York Institute of Technology.


Wolin & Wolin, Jericho, N.Y. (Alan E. Wolin of counsel), for petitioner. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Douglas P. Catalano and Neil G. Sparber of counsel), for respondent New York Institute of Technology.

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated September 9, 2010, which adopted the recommendation and findings of an administrative law judge dated January 20, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner did not establish that New York Institute of Technology discriminated against him in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment based upon his disability, in violation of Executive Law § 296, and dismissed the administrative complaint.

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs to the respondent New York Institute of Technology, payable by the petitioner.

Even had the petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination ( see Matter of McEniry v. Landi, 84 N.Y.2d 554, 558, 620 N.Y.S.2d 328, 644 N.E.2d 1019; Koester v. New York Blood Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 447, 448, 866 N.Y.S.2d 87), substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights that the petitioner's employer, New York Institute of Technology, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the petitioner from its employ, and that he did not show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination ( see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183; Matter of Sauer v. Donaldson, 49 A.D.3d 656, 657, 853 N.Y.S.2d 610; Genesky v. Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, CSEA, 287 A.D.2d 594, 595, 731 N.Y.S.2d 758).

MASTRO, A.P.J., CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Herbert v. Kirkland

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec 20, 2011
90 A.D.3d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Herbert v. Kirkland

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Arthur J. HERBERT, petitioner, v. Galen D. KIRKLAND…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 20, 2011

Citations

90 A.D.3d 927 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 9326
934 N.Y.S.2d 819

Citing Cases

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

Moreover, substantial evidence supports the SDHR's determination that the petitioner's employer, S&H Building…

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

Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the SDHR's determination that the petitioner did…