Baird v. State Div. of Human Rights

• Decision Date: 21 November 2012
• Citation: 100 A.D.3d 880,954 N.Y.S.2d 213,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07996
• Parties: In the Matter of Rosemarie BAIRD, appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 880
954 N.Y.S.2d 213
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07996

In the Matter of Rosemarie BAIRD, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 21, 2012.

[954 N.Y.S.2d 214]

Glass Krakower LLP, New York, N.Y. (Bryan D. Glass and Jordan Harlow of counsel), for appellant.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[100 A.D.3d 880]In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated July 26, 2010, which dismissed the petitioner's administrative complaint, upon, inter alia, a finding that there was no probable cause to believe that Kingsboro Psychiatric Center engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rothenberg, J.), dated March 8, 2011, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

[100 A.D.3d 881]The petitioner was employed by the respondent Kingsboro Psychiatric Center (hereinafter Kingsboro) from 1987 through July 2009, at which time she retired on a disability pension. On or about July 24, 2009, immediately before her retirement, the petitioner filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the NYSDHR) alleging that Kingsboro permitted a hostile work environment and discriminated against her based upon, inter alia, her age and disability, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296). By Determination and Order After Investigation dated July 26, 2010, the NYSDHR dismissed the petitioner's administrative complaint, finding, among other things, that the complained-of acts took place more than one year before she filed the complaint and that there was no probable cause to believe that Kingsboro engaged in the unlawful discriminatory practices complained of.

Thereafter, in September 2010, the petitioner commenced this proceeding in the

[954 N.Y.S.2d 215]

Supreme Court alleging, inter alia, that the NYSDHR's determination was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals, and we affirm.

The NYSDHR properly determined that the petitioner's administrative complaint filed with the NYSDHR was untimely ( see Matter of Murphy v. Kirkland, 88 A.D.3d 267, 273, ...