N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Executive / ARTICLE Human Rights Law
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Executive Law § 300 (2026)

Construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 300. Construction. The provisions of this article shall be construed
liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof,
regardless of whether federal civil rights laws, including those laws
with provisions worded comparably to the provisions of this article,
have been so construed. Exceptions to and exemptions from the provisions
of this article shall be construed narrowly in order to maximize
deterrence of discriminatory conduct. Nothing contained in this article
shall be deemed to repeal any of the provisions of the civil rights law
or any other law of this state relating to discrimination; but, as to
acts declared unlawful by section two hundred ninety-six of this
article, the procedure herein provided shall, while pending, be
exclusive; and the final determination therein shall exclude any other
state civil action based on the same grievance of the individual
concerned. If such individual institutes any action based on such
grievance without resorting to the procedure provided in this article,
he or she may not subsequently resort to the procedure herein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 165 cases (125 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Trathony Griffin Et Al., Appellants, v. Sirva, Inc., Et Al., Respondents, 76 N.E.3d 1063 (NY 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trathony Griffin Et Al., Appellants, v. Sirva, Inc., Et Al., Respondents, 76 N.E.3d 1063 (NY 2017). · cites it 7× “As stated expressly in the Executive Law, the HRL "shall be construed liberally" to achieve its purposes (Executive Law § 300). To that end, "it is the duty of courts to make sure that the Human Rights Law works and that the intent of the Legislature is not thwarted by a…”
O'Halloran v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 6237 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 2× “It is well settled that the terms of the State HRL must be liberally construed to accomplish the statute's intended [*9]purpose ( Matter of Cahill v Rosa , 89 NY2d 14, 20 [1996]; Executive Law § 300) and that courts must interpret the City HRL even more broadly than its State…”
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2021). “And the State of New York, as amicus, has urged this Court not to assume that the FHA and NYSHRL should be similarly interpreted, “especially in light of [these] recent amendments to the [NYSHRL] that the New York Court of Appeals has not had an opportunity to interpret.”
Eugene Margerum v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.E.3d 515 (NY 2015). · cites it 2× “7 the [Human Rights Law] shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of [its] purposes" (Executive Law § 300; see e.g. Gramatan Ave.”
Phillips v. City of New York, 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 621 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). “The intended purpose of the State HRL cannot be achieved without requiring that employers, in every case, consider the requested accommodations by engaging in an individualized, interactive process (see generally Executive Law § 300). A failure to consider the accommodation,…”
Hosking v. Mem'l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 2020 NY Slip Op 3484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “te 1: The State HRL was recently amended, to include section 300, which states, in relevant part, "The provisions of this article shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal civil rights laws, including…”
Qorrolli v. Metro. Dental Assocs., 124 F.4th 115 (2d Cir. 2024). “See N.Y. Exec. Law § 300 (requiring that the NYSHRL be construed “liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof”).”
Thoreson v. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd., 179 A.D.2d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “However, the Human Rights Law declares that it "shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the purposes thereof’ (Executive Law § 300). This statement negates the effect of the general rule of construction and renders this avenue of inquiry unavailing.”
Ctr. for Indep. of the Disabled v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 3203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “ERK Footnotes Footnote 1: In 2019, the State legislature enacted legislation that provides effective immediately that the NYSHRL shall be "construed liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal civil rights laws, including…”
Aurecchione v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 771 N.E.2d 231 (NY 2002). “Although the Human Rights Law, like title VII, makes no specific reference to pre-determination interest, a liberal reading of the statute is explicitly mandated to effectuate the statute’s intent (Executive Law § 300; Matter of Cahill v Rosa, 89 NY2d 14, 20 [1996]).”
Matter of Cahill v. Rosa, 674 N.E.2d 274 (NY 1996). · cites it 2× “1 Inasmuch as the statute does not expressly cite "dental offices” within either the *20 included or exempt categories, our task is to determine in which category such facilities fall.”
New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 164 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). “Considering the remedial nature of the Human Rights Law and an explicit statutory admonition to construe the law liberally (see, Executive Law § 300), it strikes us that a person who suffers retaliation after reasonably acting to protect others from forbidden discrimination…”
Show all 165 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.