Matter of Childs v New York State Div. of Human Rights
2008 NY Slip Op 10342 [57 AD3d 1457]
December 31, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant
to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Matter of Childs v New York State Div. of Human Rights & Buffalo Police Dept.
In the Matter of Claudia Childs, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.
—[*1] Law Office of Lindy Korn, Buffalo (Lindy Korn of counsel), for petitioner.
Alisa A. Lukasiewicz, Corporation Counsel, Buffalo (Leonardo D. Sette-Camara of counsel), for respondent Buffalo Police Department.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Paula L. Feroleto, J.], entered June 9, 2008) to review a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights. The determination found that respondent Buffalo Police Department did not engage in unlawful discriminatory practices or retaliation against petitioner.
It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights that respondent Buffalo Police Department (Department) did not unlawfully discriminate against her on the basis of gender or retaliate against her is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 ). Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner established a prima facie case of sex discrimination or retaliation (see Executive Law § 296  [a]; ; see generally Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C., 100 NY2d at 330), we conclude that the Department came forward with "legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision[s]" (Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 938 ; see generally Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 NY2d 734, 738-739 ; Bockino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 224 AD2d 471, 472 , lv denied 88 NY2d 805 ). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.