Matter of Columbia Sussex Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights

Matter of Columbia Sussex Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights 2009 NY Slip Op 04422 [63 AD3d 736] June 2, 2009 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 5, 2009

In the Matter of Columbia Sussex Corporation et al., Petitioners,
v
New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Steven E. Star of counsel), for petitioners.

Caroline J. Downey, Bronx, N.Y. (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for respondent New York State Division of Human Rights.

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights dated April 25, 2007, which, after a hearing, found, in effect, that the petitioners unlawfully discriminated against the complainant in relation to her employment by subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and awarded the complainant the principal sum of $50,000 in compensatory damages for mental anguish.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The determination of the Commissioner of the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights which found, in effect, that the petitioners unlawfully discriminated against the complainant in relation to her employment by subjecting her to a hostile work environment is supported by substantial evidence, and thus, cannot be disturbed (see Matter of Hilal v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 57 AD3d 898 [2008]). Furthermore, the compensatory award is reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by substantial evidence, and similar to comparable awards for similar injuries (see Matter of New York [*2]City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207, 219 [1991]; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Stoute, 36 AD3d 257, 266 [2006]).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.