Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Neighborhood Youth & Family Servs.

Annotate this Case
Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Neighborhood Youth & Family Servs. 2013 NY Slip Op 00162 Decided on January 15, 2013 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 January 15, 2013
Saxe, J.P., Renwick, Freedman, Román, Gische, JJ.
9011N -11

[*1]In re New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., Petitioners,

v

Neighborhood Youth & Family Services, Respondent.




Caroline J. Downey, Bronx (Toni Ann Hollifield of counsel), for
New York State Division of Human Rights, petitioner.

Application pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce petitioner New York State Division of Human Rights' (DHR) order, dated October 15, 2008, which found that respondent had discriminated against petitioner Angel Rivera on the basis of his gender, and, among other things, directed respondent to pay Rivera back pay in the principal amount of $11,511.67 and compensatory damages for mental anguish and humiliation in the principal amount of $10,000 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County [Mark Friedlander, J.], entered September 29, 2011), unanimously granted, without costs.

DHR's findings are supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181 [1978]; Matter of Bronx Cross County Med. Group v Lassen, 233 AD2d 234, 235 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 813 [1997]). Respondent, which defaulted in this proceeding, obviously failed to rebut a prima facie showing that it had discriminated against Rivera on account of his gender (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v ARC XVI Inwood, Inc., 17 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2005]). The awards of back pay and compensatory damages are proper (see Executive Law § 297[4][c][ii], [iii]; Matter of Mize v State Div. of Human Rights, 33 NY2d 53, 56 [1973]; Arc XVI Inwood, 17 AD3d at 239).

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 15, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.