NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS v. GRUZDAITIS (1999)

Petitioner commenced this proceeding for judicial enforcement of its determination that respondents had discriminated against complainant, their tenant, on the basis of her race.   Petitioner contends that the finding of discrimination is supported by substantial evidence;  that the award of $10,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages is not excessive;  and that retroactive application of the punitive damages amendment to the Human Rights Law is appropriate.   We agree and thus grant the petition in its entirety (see, Matter of City of New York v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 250 A.D.2d 273, 278, 682 N.Y.S.2d 387;  Matter of New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 241 A.D.2d 811, 661 N.Y.S.2d 85;  Matter of Feggoudakis v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 230 A.D.2d 739, 646 N.Y.S.2d 175;  Matter of Van Cleef Realty v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 216 A.D.2d 306, 306-307, 627 N.Y.S.2d 744;  Matter of Alverson v. State Div. of Human Rights, 181 A.D.2d 1019, 581 N.Y.S.2d 953;  Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. Muia, 176 A.D.2d 1142, 1143, 575 N.Y.S.2d 957;  see also, Executive Law § 297[4][c][iv] ).

 We conclude, with respect to the award of punitive damages, that the statutory amendment, which was enacted in July 1991 and declared to be effective “immediately” (L. 1991, ch. 368, § 7), was appropriately applied retroactively to this complaint, which was filed in January 1991 and stems from acts of discrimination occurring in 1989 and 1990.   It is well established that “[r]emedial statutes constitute an exception to the general rule that statutes are not to be given a retroactive operation” (McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes § 54[a] ).   Thus, in the absence of language indicating a contrary intent, “a remedial statute is ordinarily applied to procedural steps in pending actions, and is given retrospective effect in so far as the statute provides a change in the form of a remedy or provides a new remedy for an existing wrong” (Comment, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes § 54, citing Shielcrawt v. Moffett, 294 N.Y. 180, 61 N.E.2d 435;  see also, Snyder v. Newcomb Oil Co., 194 A.D.2d 53, 60, 603 N.Y.S.2d 1010;  Thomas v. State of New York, 179 A.D.2d 945, 946, 579 N.Y.S.2d 227).

Petition unanimously granted without costs.

MEMORANDUM: