New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Executive Law § 298 (2026)

Judicial review and enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 298. Judicial review and enforcement. Any complainant, respondent or
other person aggrieved by an order of the commissioner which is an order
after public hearing, a cease and desist order, an order awarding
damages, an order dismissing a complaint, or by an order of the division
which makes a final disposition of a complaint may obtain judicial
review thereof, and the division may obtain an order of court for its
enforcement and for the enforcement of any order of the commissioner
which has not been appealed to the court, in a proceeding as provided in
this section. Such proceeding shall be brought in the supreme court in
the county wherein the unlawful discriminatory practice which is the
subject of the order occurs or wherein any person required in the order
to cease and desist from an unlawful discriminatory practice or to take
other affirmative action resides or transacts business. Such proceeding
shall be initiated by the filing of a notice of petition and petition in
such court. Thereafter, at a time and in a manner to be specified by
rules of court, the division shall file with the court a written
transcript of the record of all prior proceedings. Upon the filing of a
notice of petition and petition, the court shall have jurisdiction of
the proceeding and of the questions determined therein, except that
where the order sought to be reviewed was made as a result of a public
hearing held pursuant to paragraph a of subdivision four of section two
hundred ninety-seven of this article, the court shall make an order
directing that the proceeding be transferred for disposition to the
appellate division of the supreme court in the judicial department
embracing the county in which the proceeding was commenced. The court
shall have power to grant such temporary relief or restraining order as
it deems just and proper, and to make and enter upon the pleadings,
testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript an order
enforcing, modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in
whole or in part such order. No objection that has not been urged in
prior proceedings shall be considered by the court, unless the failure
or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of
extraordinary circumstances. Any party may move the court to remit the
case to the division in the interests of justice for the purpose of
adducing additional specified and material evidence and seeking findings
thereon, provided he or she shows reasonable grounds for the failure to
adduce such evidence in prior proceedings. The findings of facts on
which such order is based shall be conclusive if supported by sufficient
evidence on the record considered as a whole. All such proceedings shall
be heard and determined by the court and any appeal taken from its
judgment or order shall be reviewed by the appropriate appellate court
as expeditiously as possible and with lawful precedence over other
matters. The jurisdiction of the courts over these proceedings, as
provided for herein, shall be exclusive and their judgments and orders
shall be final, subject to appellate review in the same manner and form
and with the same effect as provided for appeals from a judgment in a
special proceeding. The division's copy of the testimony shall be
available at all reasonable times to all parties for examination without
cost and for the purposes of judicial review of such order. Any appeal
under this section and any proceeding, if instituted under article
seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules to which the division
or the board is a party shall be heard on the record without requirement
of printing. The division may appear in court by one of its attorneys. A
proceeding under this section when instituted by any complainant,
respondent or other person aggrieved must be instituted within sixty
days after the service of such order. In cases of housing discrimination
only, a complaint dismissed after investigation for lack of jurisdiction
or lack of probable cause may either be appealed pursuant to this
section or the same cause of action may be filed in a court of
appropriate jurisdiction pursuant to section two hundred ninety-seven of
this article.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 445 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Murphy v. Kirkland, 88 A.D.3d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Murphy v. Kirkland, 88 A.D.3d 267 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 3× “Murphy, but not Alliance, commenced this proceeding under Executive Law § 298 in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to vacate and annul the July 3, 2009 determination, and the Division cross-petitioned to enforce it.”

Ballard v. Hsbc Bank USA, 848 N.E.2d 1292 (NY 2006). · cites it 6× “The issue before this Court is whether the failure of petitioner Diane Ballard to include a return date in a notice of petition constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect under Executive Law § 298. We hold that it does not and that respondent HSBC waived its right to…”

New York City Transit Auth. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 577 N.E.2d 40 (NY 1991). · cites it 3× “” (Executive Law § 298.) The statute, however, does not specify any particular standard for judicial review of the relief awarded by the Commissioner.”

Alexandra York v. Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York, 286 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002). “N.Y. Exec. Law § 298 . Appellant failed to appeal the adverse rulings by the NYSDHR to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and instead attempted to relitigate her claims in the United States District Court, in contravention of the statutory and code schemes detailed…”

Torrico v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 213 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 3× “Section 298-a(l) of the statute provides that the statute applies to acts of discrimination “committed outside this state against a resident of this state .”

Goldberg v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 85 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). “ums of $20,000 in compensatory damages for mental anguish and $35,624 in damages for lost wages from the date of her termination from employment until January 2006, and amended the findings by awarding additional damages in the principal sum of $119,266 for lost wages for the…”

Joseph v. Athanasopoulos, 648 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “HDMJ moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition was untimely under N.Y. Exec. Law § 298 , which provides that any such proceeding must be initiated within sixty days of service of the challenged order.”

City of New York v. State Div. of Human Rights, 510 N.E.2d 799 (NY 1987). · cites it 2× “In this proceeding commenced pursuant to Executive Law § 298, a divided Appel *106 late Division annulled the Division’s determination and dismissed the complaint.”

State Div. of Human Rights v. Xerox Corp., 480 N.E.2d 695 (NY 1985). · cites it 2× “" In this proceeding commenced pursuant to Executive Law § 298, the Appellate Division reversed the Board and reinstated the Commissioner's determination.”

New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Young Legends, LLC, 90 A.D.3d 1265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · cites it 3× “75 for lost wages and $25,000 for mental anguish and humiliation. Upon administrative review, the Commissioner of Human Rights modified the ALJ’s recommended order by increasing the mental anguish award to $500,000.”

Int'l Healthcare Exch., Inc. v. Global Healthcare Exch., LLC, 470 F. Supp. 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “N.Y. Exec. Law § 298 -a. However, Cuene brings her state claims under section 296, which covers acts of discrimination that occur within New York State, regardless of the residency status of the parties.”

Schuler v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “Significantly, the NYHRL does include a section extending the law “to certain acts committed outside the state of New York,” N.Y. Exec. Law § 298 -a, but, as PwC’s counsel again conceded at oral argument, neither of that provision’s two subsections has any bearing on this case.”

Show all 445 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.