Opinion
March 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that the independent, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by her employer for discharging her were not the employer's true reasons, but a pretext for discrimination ( see, Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937; Matter of Talt v State Div. of Human Rights, 156 A.D.2d 569). Further, the Division of Human Rights' investigation of the petitioner's complaint was not abbreviated or one sided. Moreover, the evidence did not present inconsistencies or unresolved questions that required further scrutiny by the Division of Human Rights ( see, Matter of Stewart v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 128 A.D.2d 625; cf., Matter of Hendel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 114 A.D.2d 897, 898).
Since a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a) was not required given the facts of this case, the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the determination of the Division of Human Rights is whether it is in accordance with the law, arbitrary and capricious, or without a rational basis ( see, Executive Law § 298; CPLR 7803; Matter of Giles v. State Div. of Human Rights, 166 A.D.2d 779, 780; see also, State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 N.Y.2d 276, 284; Matter of Bruno v Pembrook Mgt., 212 A.D.2d 314, 318; Matter of Sidoti v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 212 A.D.2d 537). Applying the foregoing standard of review, we find that the Supreme Court correctly confirmed the determination of the Division of Human Rights and dismissed the proceeding. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.