Adams v. Taylor Instrument, 195 A.D.2d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1993). · Go Syfert
Adams v. Taylor Instrument, 195 A.D.2d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur E. S. Adams, Appellants-Respondents
v.
Taylor Instrument, a Division of Combustion Engineering, Inc., Also Known as CE—Process Automation Business
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 16, 1993.
Published opinion
195 A.D.2d 1058
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion for summary judgment granted in part in accordance with the following Memorandum: The court erred in finding, "upon reconsideration,” that plaintiffs did not elect their administrative remedies pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (9). Although that section was amended to provide that a complaint filed with the equal employment opportunity commission shall not constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of section 297 (9), the effective date of that amendment was well after plaintiffs filed complaints with that agency. Because the amendment expressly provides for prospective application only, it does not apply to plaintiffs. Thus, we reverse, grant in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and dismiss the first and second causes of action of all plaintiffs except Augenstein, thereby reinstating the first[*1059] ordering paragraph of the order entered August 5, 1992. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.