Orosz v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The petitioner argues that the Supreme Court applied the incorrect “substantial evidence” standard rather than the “arbitrary and capricious” standard. Since a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a) was not conducted, the appropriate standard of review to be applied to the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) is whether the determination is without a rational basis and, hence, arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Bazile v Acinapura, 225 AD2d 764, 765 [1996]; cf. CPLR 7803 [3]). In denying the petition and dismissing the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Maltsev v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Rauch v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Cornelius v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Bazile v. AcinapuraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Pathak v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
3Cited by18 opinions
- Matter of Gordon v. New York State Div. of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Matter of Sahni v. FosterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Matter of Steinberg-Fisher v. North Shore Towers Apts., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Matter of Ackerman v. New York State Div. of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Matter of Lopez v. New York State Div. of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.