Ken Edrich Leather Accessories, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment,
Petitioners’ argument that a writ of prohibition is warranted ■ because they are not employers within the meaning of Executive Law § 292 (5) and the complainant is not an employee within the meaning of Executive Law § 292 (6) was properly rejected. Petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars this proceeding (see, Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789; Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52). Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.