October 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, [Bruce McM. Wright, J.].
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioner's stated reasons for not reemploying the complainant were pretexts for discriminating against her because she recently gave birth (see, St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 US ___, 113 S Ct 2742; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179-182, 183). We find the awards for mental anguish (cf., Kelley v. Analytab Prods., 204 A.D.2d 113; Matter of Unitel Video v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 147 A.D.2d 377), back pay (see, State Univ. Agric. Tech. Coll. v State Div. of Human Rights, 134 A.D.2d 339), and prejudgment interest (see, State Div. of Human Rights v. Massive Economic Neighborhood Dev., 47 A.D.2d 187) excessive to the extent indicated.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.