Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: BERNICE MALCOLM, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SECTION, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ANNETTE GAUL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HONEOYE FALLS–LIMA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MICHELLE KAVANAUGH, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND INDIVIDUALLY, AND WAYNE A. VANDER BYL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SCHOOL ATTORNEY AND INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS. BERNICE MALCOLM, PETITIONER–APPELLANT PRO SE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BOARD'S ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE SECTION, AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ANNETTE GAUL, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND INDIVIDUALLY.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND INDIVIDUALLY, AND WAYNE A. VANDER BYL, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SCHOOL ATTORNEY AND INDIVIDUALLY.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to vacate the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), which had dismissed her discrimination complaint against, inter alia, respondent New York State Department of Labor (DOL), for lack of jurisdiction. We conclude that Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Stoudymire v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 109 AD3d 1096, 1096, affg for reasons stated 36 Misc.3d 919, 920–921; cf. Matter of Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle, 210 A.D.2d 339, 339–340). DOL “was not petitioner's employer. Nor is it an employment agency or a labor organization. Therefore, section 296 of the Executive Law is inapplicable and [the SDHR] has no jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the complaint” (State Div. of Human Rights v New York State Dept. of Labor, Unemployment Ins. Div., 84 A.D.2d 961, 961–962).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, respondents were not required to move pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the petition. This is a CPLR article 78/Executive Law § 298 special proceeding to review the determination of the SDHR (see Matter of Kaplan v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 95 AD3d 1120, 1122–1123), and therefore the court was permitted to make a summary determination upon the pleadings to the extent that no triable issues of fact were raised (see CPLR 409[b] ), without the need for a CPLR 3211 motion. We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit or not properly before us.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: CA 13–01283
Decided: November 14, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)