Sattler v. City of New York Com'n on Human Rights
| Decision Date | 03 February 1992 |
| Citation | 180 A.D.2d 644,580 N.Y.S.2d 35 |
| Parties | , 3 NDLR P 163 In the Matter of Robert SATTLER, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
O. Peter Sherwood, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Fay Leoussis and Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy, of counsel), for appellant.
Hashmall, Sheer, Bank & Geist, White Plains (Jay B. Hashmall, of counsel), for respondent.
Gulielmetti & Gesmer, P.C. (Robert M. Petrucci and Ellen Gesmer, of counsel), the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Aids Project (Nan D. Hunter, Judith Levin, and William B. Rubenstein, of counsel), Nat. Lawyers Guild, New York City (Katherine Franke, of counsel), for American Civ. Liberties Union, the American Jewish Congress, the Asian American Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Disability Advocates, Inc., the Lambda Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, the Legal Action Center of the City of New York, Inc., Legal Services for the Elderly, NAACP Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., the Nat. Emergency Civ. Liberties Committee, the Nat. Lawyers Guild, the Now Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., amici curiae.
Evan Wolfson and Paula L. Ettelbrick, Lambda Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, Inc., New York City, for American Foundation for AIDS Research, Citizens Com'n on AIDS for New York City and Northern New Jersey, Community Health Project, Manhattan Dental Guild, New York Physicians for Human Rights, the Public Health Ass'n of New York City, Gerald Friedland, Robert Klein, Mathilde Krim, Frank Lilly, Charles Lo Piccolo, Howard Grossman, and Jack Rosenberg, amici curiae (one brief filed).
Power, Weiss & Marks, New York City (Arnold M. Weiss and Nancy J. Wein, of counsel), for Dental Society of the State of N.Y., amicus curiae.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and SULLIVAN, HARWOOD and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In proceeding pursuant to New York City Administrative Code former § 8-110 to review a determination of the New York City Commission on Human Rights, dated November 30, 1989, which held that the petitioner, a dentist, discriminated against the complainant because he was infected with the HIV virus, and awarded the complainant $3,000 in compensatory damages the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered March 31, 1990, which found in favor of the petitioner and vacated the Commission's determination. 554 N.Y.S.2d 763.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
After the complainant, who tested positive for the HIV virus, filed a complaint against the petitioner, Dr. Robert Sattler, a dentist, with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the Commission), a hearing was held to determine whether Dr. Sattler did in fact discriminate against the complainant in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York former §§ 8-107(2) and 8-108. The Administrative Law Judge who heard the case and whose findings were adopted by the Commission, determined that certain statements Dr. Sattler made to the complainant during a telephone conversation constituted a refusal to treat him based on his status as a person infected with the HIV virus.
Under Administrative Code former §§ 8-107(2) and 8-108, it was unlawful for a "place of public accommodation" to discriminate against an "otherwise qualified physically handicapped" individual. No issue has been raised on this appeal with respect to whether an HIV-infected person constitutes an "otherwise qualified physically handicapped" individual. The dispositive issue in this case is whether the petitioner's one-chair dental practice was a "place of public accommodation" as defined in Administrative Code former § 8-102(9) as that law existed when the alleged discrimination occurred.
We note that Administrative Code § 8-102(9) was amended in 1991 after the Supreme Court issued its decision in this case. The amended version provides, inter alia, that a " 'place or provider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Daytop Village, Inc.
...this regulation, Plaintiff refused to conform. II Clinic is a "common word of clear import" (Sattler v. City Commission on Human Rights, 180 A.D.2d 644, 646, 580 N.Y.S.2d 35 [2d Dept., 1992]. Its plain meaning, as reflected in several widely used dictionaries, is "a facility ... that is dev......
-
Cahill v. Rosa
...and retail" thus limiting the meaning of "establishments" to something akin to stores (citing Matter of Sattler v. City of New York Commn. on Human Rights, 180 A.D.2d 644, 580 N.Y.S.2d 35, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 701, 594 N.Y.S.2d 715, 610 N.E.2d 388). The language of the statute is ambiguous ......
-
Lasser v. Rosa
...the complainant testified that Dr. Lasser never told her that he would not treat her (see, Matter of Sattler v. City of New York Commn. on Human Rights, 180 A.D.2d 644, 646, 580 N.Y.S.2d 35). The contemporaneously made entries on the complainant's dental charts also support the assertion th......
-
Cahill v. Rosa
...owned building, demonstrate that the petitioner's dental office did not operate as a clinic (see, Matter of Sattler v. City of New York Comm. on Human Rights, 180 A.D.2d 644, 580 N.Y.S.2d 35). Moreover, where a statute consists of common words of clear import and statutory construction is d......