Town of Huntington v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
| Decision Date | 14 October 1993 |
| Citation | 624 N.E.2d 678,604 N.Y.S.2d 541,82 N.Y.2d 783 |
| Parties | , 624 N.E.2d 678 In the Matter of the TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.
The extraordinary writ of prohibition does not lie to prevent the Division of Human Rights from considering an individual's complaint of racial discrimination.
In March 1986 petitioner Town of Huntington (hereafter Town) hired respondent Charles Reed, an African American male, as a sign inspector, which is a competitive class civil service title. In April 1987, Reed was suspended pending an investigation into charges of incompetence and misconduct. By notice, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, he was charged with, inter alia, incompetence, misconduct, insubordination and improper use of equipment. Reed denied these charges.
At a section 75 hearing, Reed responded affirmatively to the question whether he believed the charges against him were racially motivated. Reed stated that he was harassed and his director used racial epithets in reference to him. The Hearing Officer, Thomas Mazzola, concluded that Reed was guilty of several of the charges but recommended a lenient penalty. Mazzola found no substantial evidence or testimony to validate Reed's claim of racial discrimination, notwithstanding a witness' claim that he heard the director use racial epithets in describing Reed.
Two Town officials, John O'Neill and Lisa M. Baisley, subsequently reviewed Mazzola's findings and recommendations and issued decisions. Reed commenced a successful CPLR article 78 proceeding annulling O'Neill's determination because O'Neill had not been duly appointed by the Town Board. The Town Board then appointed Baisley to review the records and her decision dismissing Reed was upheld by the Appellate Division upon Reed's challenge (see, Matter of Reed v. Town of Huntington, 186 A.D.2d 745, 589 N.Y.S.2d 58).
Reed filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights on August 12, 1987, charging the Town with "discrimination in employment, by denying [him] equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment, because of [his] race and color", thus violating New York's Human Rights Law.
The Town commenced an article 78 proceeding on November 20, 1989, by writ of prohibition, seeking an order staying the Division from investigating and adjudicating Reed's complaint. Supreme Court (1) denied the Town's stay request for prohibition, holding that the writ was not applicable here, where there was no showing that the Division threatened to act beyond its jurisdiction, and (2) granted the Division's cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.
The Appellate Division reversed, granted the petition, prohibited the Division from considering Reed's complaint, and determined that respondents were collaterally estopped from litigating the discrimination claim. The Court concluded that Reed "vigorously presented his claim of discrimination in the civil service proceeding" and that his allegations in that proceeding were "essentially" the same as those he seeks to offer before the Division (181 A.D.2d 827, 828, 581 N.Y.S.2d 381). We granted leave to appeal.
The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address "whether [a] body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction" (CPLR 7803[2]. "Prohibition may be maintained solely to prevent or control a body or officer acting in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Pataki
...officer from acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. See Town of Huntington v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 N.Y.2d 783, 604 N.Y.S.2d 541, 542-43, 624 N.E.2d 678 (Ct. App.1993). Neither circumstance would cover a convicted sex offender's appeal of his risk level ......
-
Morris v. Reynolds
...proceeding or threatening to proceed without or in excess of its jurisdiction...." Town of Huntington v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 N.Y.2d 783, 604 N.Y.S.2d 541, 624 N.E.2d 678, 679 (1993) (quoting Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46, 467 N.Y.S.2d 182, 454 N.E.2d 522, 524 Prohibi......
-
Brown v. Blumenfeld
...Correctional Servs., 10 N.Y.3d 358, 859 N.Y.S.2d 590, 889 N.E.2d 467;Matter of Town of Huntington v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 N.Y.2d 783, 786, 604 N.Y.S.2d 541, 624 N.E.2d 678;Matter of Rush v. Mordue, 68 N.Y.2d at 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170;Matter of Dondi v. Jone......
-
Rochester City Sch. Dist. v. City of Rochester, E2019007046
...relief is appropriate when a petitioner shows a clear legal right thereto. See Town of Huntington v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 82 N.Y.2d 783, 786, 604 N.Y.S.2d 541, 624 N.E.2d 678 (1993) ; Rush v. Mordue , 68 N.Y.2d 348, 352, 509 N.Y.S.2d 493, 502 N.E.2d 170 (1986) ; Niagara Fro......
-
2.105 - C. Civil Service Law § 75
...129 (1st Dep’t 1995).[1317] . Town of Huntington v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, 181 A.D.2d 827, 581 N.Y.S.2d 381 (1992), rev’d, 82 N.Y.2d 783, 604 N.Y.S.2d 541...