Letray v. N.Y.S. Div. of Human Rights, 134

CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
Citation181 A.D.3d 1296,121 N.Y.S.3d 481
Docket Number134,CA 19–00313
Parties In the Matter of Deanna LETRAY, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, City of Watertown Police Department, and Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Respondents–Respondents.
Decision Date20 March 2020

181 A.D.3d 1296
121 N.Y.S.3d 481

In the Matter of Deanna LETRAY, Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, City of Watertown Police Department, and Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, Respondents–Respondents.

134
CA 19–00313

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

Entered: March 20, 2020


ERIN BETH HARRIST, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NEW YORK CITY, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT.

CAROLINE J. DOWNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, BRONX (ERIN SOBKOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

SLYE LAW OFFICES, P.C., WATERTOWN (ROBERT J. SLYE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT–RESPONDENT CITY OF WATERTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

181 A.D.3d 1296

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner filed an administrative complaint with respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) alleging illegal discrimination during petitioner's arrest and subsequent prearraignment incarceration by respondent City of Watertown Police Department in a facility owned by respondent Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. SDHR dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and petitioner then commenced

121 N.Y.S.3d 483

this proceeding to annul that determination as arbitrary, capricious, and affected by an error of law (see generally Executive Law § 298 ). Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and we now affirm.

SDHR has jurisdiction to, inter alia, investigate and

181 A.D.3d 1297

adjudicate complaints of unlawful discrimination in the provision of any "public accommodation, resort or amusement" ( Executive Law § 296[2][a] ; see § 295[6] ; Matter of Staten Is. Alliance for Mentally Ill v. Mercado , 273 A.D.2d 36, 36–37, 708 N.Y.S.2d 402 [1st Dept. 2000] ). For purposes of the Human Rights Law, a "public accommodation, resort or amusement" offers " ‘conveniences and services to the public’ " and is "generally open to all comers" ( Matter of Cahill v. Rosa , 89 N.Y.2d 14, 21, 651 N.Y.S.2d 344, 674 N.E.2d 274 [1996] ), and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Lechase Constr. Servs., LLC v. JM Bus. Assocs. Corp., 113
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 20, 2020
    ...or otherwise respond to the summons and complaint, plaintiff moved for, inter alia, a default judgment on liability. In support of the 121 N.Y.S.3d 481 amended motion, plaintiff submitted, in addition to evidence establishing the default of defendant and "proof of the facts constituting the......
1 cases
  • Lechase Constr. Servs., LLC v. JM Bus. Assocs. Corp., 113
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 20, 2020
    ...or otherwise respond to the summons and complaint, plaintiff moved for, inter alia, a default judgment on liability. In support of the 121 N.Y.S.3d 481 amended motion, plaintiff submitted, in addition to evidence establishing the default of defendant and "proof of the facts constitutin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT