David v New York City Commn. on Human Rights

David v New York City Commn. on Human Rights 2008 NY Slip Op 10195 [57 AD3d 406] December 30, 2008 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Vanessa C. David, Appellant,
v
New York City Commission on Human Rights et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Bailey & Sherman, P.C., Douglaston (Edward G. Bailey of counsel), for appellant.

Clifford Mulqueen, New York, for New York City Commission on Human Rights, respondent.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), for New York City Department of Education and Frank Borrowiec, respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered May 29, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York City Commission on Human Rights (HRC), dated August 9, 2005, affirming HRC's determination and order after investigation, finding no probable cause to believe that petitioner was discriminated against by her employer, respondent Department of Education, and to convert the proceeding into a plenary action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

HRC's determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1998]). Notwithstanding petitioner's concern with HRC's alleged predisposition, the record establishes that HRC conducted a sufficient investigation, including interviewing over 20 witnesses, that was not "abbreviated or one sided" into her claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender and sexual orientation (Matter of Levin v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 12 AD3d 328, 329 [2004]). Nor is there evidence that HRC was biased against petitioner. [*2]

In light of the foregoing, petitioner's request to convert this proceeding into a plenary action (CPLR 103 [c]) has been rendered academic. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 31312(U).]