Matter of Garba Casting Co., Inc. v Mosquera

Matter of Matter of Garba Casting Co., Inc. v Mosquera 2012 NY Slip Op 07063 Decided on October 23, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 23, 2012
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
8346 106554/11

[*1]In re Garba Casting Co., Inc., Petitioner,

v

Veronica Mosquera, et al., Respondents.




Goldstein & Handwerker, LLP, New York (Steven T.
Goldstein of counsel), for petitioner.
Caroline J. Downey, Bronx (Toni Ann Hollifield of counsel), for
respondents.

Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights, dated April 8, 2011, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that petitioner had unlawfully discriminated against respondent Veronica Mosquera, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to Executive Law § 298 and 22 NYCRR 202.57 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Shlomo S. Hagler, J.], entered September 13, 2011), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the finding that petitioner had retaliated against Mosquera for her refusal to convince another employee, her nephew, to drop his discrimination complaint against petitioner, and for her statement to petitioner that she would be a witness for her nephew (see Matter of CUNY-Hostos Community Coll. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 NY2d 69, 75 [1983]). We reject petitioner's contention that Mosquera's claim must fail simply because her nephew's complaint was ultimately found to be without merit (see Modiano v Elliman, 262 AD2d 223 [1st Dept 1999]). Indeed, there is substantial evidence that Mosquera reasonably believed that her nephew was fired for discriminatory reasons and that she was entitled to the protections of the Human Rights Law (see id.).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments, including its contention that Mosquera was terminated for nondiscriminatory reasons, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 23, 2012

CLERK