Ramirez v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 828 N.E.2d 80 (NY 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Ramirez v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 828 N.E.2d 80 (NY 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Sahni v. Foster (nyappdiv, 2016-12-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Sahni v. Foster
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Where, as here, the DHR renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis (see Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 [2005]; Matter of Orosz v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 AD3d 798, 798-799 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Gordon v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Where, as here, the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the NYSDHR) renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 [2005]; Matter of Vora v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD3d 739 , 739 [2013]; Matter of Orosz v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 AD3d 798 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lopez v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Where, as here, the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the NYSDHR) renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis (see Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 [2005]; Matter of Vora v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 103 AD3d 739 , 739 [2013]; Matter of Orosz v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 AD3d 798 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Napierala v. New York State Division of Human Rights
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
SDHR “has broad discretion to determine the method to be employed in investigating complaints . . . , and its determinations are entitled to considerable deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims” (Matter of Cornelius v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 286 AD2d 329, 329-330 [2001]; see generally Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" Napierala v. New York State Division of Human Rights
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
SDHR “has broad discretion to determine the method to be employed in investigating complaints . . . , and its determinations are entitled to considerable deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims” (Matter of Cornelius v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 286 AD2d 329, 329-330 [2001]; see generally Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 [2005]).
discussed Cited "see" NAPIERALA, LISA v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RI
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
SDHR “has broad discretion to determine the method to be employed in investigating complaints . . . , and its determinations are entitled to considerable deference due to its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims” (Matter of Cornelius v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 286 AD2d 329 , 329- 330; see generally Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 ).
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Walker v. NYS Div. of Human Rights
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Where, as here, the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the NYSDHR) renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, “the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis” (Matter of Gordon v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 126 AD3d 697, 698 [2015]; see Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 4 NY3d 789, 790 [2005]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Anthony Ramirez
v.
New York State Division of Human Rights, and Aladdin Laminating, Inc.
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 22, 2005.
828 N.E.2d 80
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Michael K. Swirsky, Bronx, and Gina M. Lopez Summa for appellant., J.L. Engram & Associates, Bronx (Jimmie Engram of counsel), for Anthony Ramirez, respondent., Gary John Dmoch & Associates, Flushing (Gary J. Dmoch of counsel), for Aladdin Laminating, Inc., respondent.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with[*790] costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court dismissing the petition reinstated.

Documents that were part of the administrative record, and are part of the appeal before us, specifically detail conferences between the Division and petitioner, and demonstrate that a meaningful investigation of petitioner’s complaint occurred. Based on that investigation, the Division’s finding of no probable cause was not arbitrary, capricious or lacking a rational basis (see Washington Sq. Inst, for Psychotherapy & Mental Health v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 67 NY2d 699, 701 [1986]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.