Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Milan Maintenance, Inc.

Annotate this Case
Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Milan Maintenance, Inc. 2017 NY Slip Op 05508 Decided on July 6, 2017 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 July 6, 2017
Tom, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Gische, JJ.
4408 450543/13

[*1]In re New York State Division of Human Rights, Petitioner,

v

Milan Maintenance, Inc., et al., Respondents.



Caroline J. Downey, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for petitioner.



Determination of petitioner New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated February 28, 2011, granting the complaint for employment discrimination and awarding the complainant $10,000 for mental anguish and humiliation (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Joan A. Madden, J.], entered on or about September 26, 2013), unanimously confirmed, without costs.

DHR's findings are supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 [1978]). Respondents defaulted in this proceeding and thus failed to rebut a prima facie showing that they discriminated against complainant on account of his criminal conviction (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v ARC XVI Inwood, Inc., 17 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2005]).

The award of compensatory damages for mental anguish is proper (see Executive Law § 297[4][c][iii]; Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Neighborhood Youth & Family Servs., 102 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of City of New York v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 250 AD2d 273, 278 [1st Dept 1998], mod on other grounds 93 NY2d 768 [1999]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JULY 6, 2017

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.