Opinion
December 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.).
After respondent filed his complaint charging that petitioner discriminated against him because of his blindness, the Commission on Human Rights did not render a final determination for 7 years. While Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-109 (2) provides that "[a]fter the filing of any complaint, the Commission shall make prompt investigation in connection therewith", petitioner did not establish that it suffered substantial prejudice resulting from the non-compliance (see, Matter of Syquia v Board of Educ., 80 N.Y.2d 531, 535-536). In so ruling, we in no way condone the extensive delay herein.
Once respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was qualified for the position of a telephone interviewer, the burden shifted to petitioner to show that it could not reasonably accommodate respondent (Prewitt v United States Postal Servs., 662 F.2d 292, 308; compare, Local Laws, 1991, No. 39 of the City of New York, § 1 [codified at Administrative Code of City of N Y § 8-102 (18)]). Petitioner failed to meet its burden. Refusal to modify its existing programs amounted to discrimination (see, Dopico v Goldschmidt, 687 F.2d 644, 652).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the award for compensatory damages is supported by the evidence (Matter of Imperial Diner v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 52 N.Y.2d 72, 79). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross and Rubin, JJ.