Ghemawat v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Opinion of the Court
In a proceeding pursuant to Executive Law
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Executive Law § 298; Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Oneida County Sheriff’s Dept., 70 NY2d 974, 976-977; Matter of Patel v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 212 AD2d 715). Contrary to Ghemawat’s contention, he had a full and fair opportunity to be heard. As evidenced by the voluminous record, Ghemawat had ample opportunity to submit his contentions and evidence (see, Matter of Chirgotis v Mobil Oil Corp., 128 AD2d 400, 403), and had further opportunity to present his case during a two-party conference that was held as part of the investigation. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.