Legal Opinion
MATTER OF CAHILL v. Rosa
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 15, 1996PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Simons, J.
In separate proceedings, petitioners, dentists in private practice, have been found guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice because they failed to treat patients who were known or suspected to be HIV positive. The question presented is whether private dental offices are "placets] of public accommodation” within the definition of the Human Rights Law and subject to its provisions (see, Executive Law § 292 [9]).
In Cahill, complainant alleged that he went to petitioner’s office, without appointment, for treatment of a cracked tooth. He stated that the dental…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Daniel v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- People v. ShapiroNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- People v. IllardoNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- City of Schenectady v. State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- De Wolf v. . FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- Aurecchione v. New York State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Obabueki v. International Business MacHines Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- Nevin v. Citibank, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Argyle Realty Associates v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.