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: Arthur J. Herbert, petitioner, v Galen D. Kirkland, etc., et al., respondents.
Submitted—October 28, 2011
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated September 9, 2010, which adopted the recommendation and findings of an administrative law judge dated January 20, 2010, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner did not establish that New York Institute of Technology discriminated against him in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment based upon his disability, in violation of Executive Law § 296, and dismissed the administrative complaint.
ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs to the respondent New York Institute of Technology, payable by the petitioner.
Even had the petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination (see Matter of McEniry v. Landi, 84 N.Y.2d 554, 558; Koester v. New York Blood Ctr., 55 AD3d 447, 448), substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights that the petitioner's employer, New York Institute of Technology, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the petitioner from its employ, and that he did not show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180; Matter of Sauer v. Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 657; Genesky v Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL–CIO, CSEA, 287 A.D.2d 594, 595).
MASTRO, A.P.J., CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2010–09247 (Index No. 6329 /09)
Decided: December 20, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)