Hilal v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Determinations of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) are accorded “considerable deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims” (Matter of Matteo v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 306 AD2d 484, 485 [2003]; see Matter of Club Swamp Annex v White, 167 AD2d 400, 401 [1990]). A determination may not be set aside “ ‘merely because the opposite decision would have been reasonable and also sustainable’ ” (Matter of Matteo v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 306 AD2d at *899485, quoting Matter of Mize v State Div. of Human Rights, 33…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Imperial Diner, Inc. v. State Human Rights Appeal BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Mize v. State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Vitale v. Rosina Food Products Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Eastport Associates, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- MTA Trading, Inc. v. KirklandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Rauch v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Columbia Sussex Corp. v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Gold Coast Restaurant Corp. v. GibsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.