\
SHORT FORM ORDER
c
SUPREME COURT- STATE OFNEW YORK
3
Present:
HON. XENNE TH A. DA VIS.
Justice
TRIAL/IAS, PART 11
NASSAU COUNTY
In the Matter of The Application of
Occius Prophete,
Petitioner(s),
For a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78
05/30/02
INDEX No.: 3453/01
xxx
SUBMISSION DATE:
-against-
*
New York State Division of Human Rights,
MOTION SEQUENCE #l
Respondent(s).
The following papers read on this motion:
Notice of Petition .............................
Answering Papers ...............................
Reply ..........................................
Briefs: Plaintiff's/Petitioner's ..............
Defendant's/Respondent's ..............
X
X
Upon the foregoing papers, petitioner's request that this
court grant an order pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR annulling
and vacating the determination of respondent New York State
Division of Human Rights (hereinafter 'IDHRI') whereby petitioner's
complaint for age discrimination was dismissed and the file closed
is denied.
The instant action arose after petitioner's employment with
respondent, Slanco Manufacturing, Inc., was terminated on August
12, 1999. Petitioner was terminated after he allegedly threatened
a fellow employee with a knife during a lunch break.
Petitioner
alleged that he had been
terminated as a
result of age
discrimination.
(At 62 years old, petitioner was the oldest nonmanagerial employee at the company.)
Respondent DHR conducted an
investigation, without a hearing, and made a No Probable Cause
Determination finding insufficient evidence that respondent, Slanco
Manufacturing, Inc., unlawfully discriminated against petitioner.
Application of Occius Prophete v NYS Div. of Human Rights
Index No.: 3453/01
CPLR §7803 states:
The only questions that may be raised in a
proceeding under this article are:
1.
Whether the body or officer failed to
perform a duty enjoined upon it by law; or
2. Whether the body or officer proceeded, is
proceeding or is about to proceed without or
in excess of jurisdiction; or
3.
Whether a determination was made in
violation of lawfutiprocedure, was affected by
an error of
law or
was arbitrary and
capricious or an
abuse of
discretion,
including abuse of discretion as to the
measure or mode of penalty or discipline
imposed; or
4.
Whether a determination made as a result
of a ,hearing held, and at which evidence was
taken, pursuant to direction by law is, on the
entire
record,
supported by
substantial
evidence.
In the instant matter, petitioner claims that the decision to
deny them benefits was made in violation of paragraph 3 of CPLR
§7803; petitioner argues the DHR exercised its power in an
arbitrary, capricious and irrational manner.
The DHR "has broad discretion to determine the method to be
employed in investigating complaints."
Cornelius v New York State
Division of Human Rishts, 728 N.Y.S.2d 703, 704 (2d Dep't 2001).
Furthermore, the DHR's decisions "are entitled to considerable
deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination
claims."
a.
The DHR conducted a comprehensive investigation
including interviewing witnesses to the incident. Furthermore, the
DHR considered that petitioner had a full and fair arbitration
hearing during which he never made a claim that he was discharged
because of his age.
See 3. (upholding the DHR's determination
when it conducted a comprehensive investigation and petitioner "was
afforded ample opportunity" to rebut the respondents' showing of
"legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons" for refusing to lease
her an apartment).
The DHR also considered an Administrative Law
Judge's decision upholding petitioner's disqualification from
receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct.
The
Page 2
Application of Occius Prophete v NYS Div. of Human Rights
Index No.: 3453/01
court finds that the DHR's determination that no probable cause
existed for petitioner's complaint was not arbitrary, capricious
nor an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, petitioner's application
is denied.
This decision
Dated:
i-K+!. KENNETH A. DAVEi
JUL 29 2Ml2
Page 3