Rio Mar Restaurant v. New York State Division of Human Rights
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bloomberg L.P. (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Lore v. City of Syracuse (2d Cir. 2012)
- New York State Division of Human Rights v. A.R. Heflin Painting Contractor, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- New York State Division of Human Rights v. A.R. Heflin Painting Contractor, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Murphy v. Kirkland (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2006)
- Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (2d Cir. 2004)
- Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (2d Cir. 2004)
- Boodram v. Brooklyn Developmental Center (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
- Stranz v. Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc. (In re Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut 2002)
- Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. International Fin. Servs. Group (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. Steve's Pier One, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Palmblad v. Gibson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- New York State Division of Human Rights v. Fulton Footcare Associates, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Determination of respondent Division, dated July 1, 1998, which found that petitioners sexually harassed the complainant and constructively terminated her employment because of her sex, and awarded her $500,000 in compensatory damages and $65,850, plus interest, in back pay, unanimously modified, on the facts, and the petition granted to the extent of reducing the compensatory damage award to $125,000, and the proceeding brought pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Franklin Weissberg, J.], entered November 25, 1998) is otherwise disposed of by confirming the remainder of the determination, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports the Division’s findings that the petitioners sexually harassed and constructively discharged complainant from her employment (see, Executive Law § 298;
However, the award of $500,000 in compensatory damages was excessive and we reduce said award to $125,000 (see, Anderson v YARP Rest., 1997 WL 27043, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 560 [SD NY, Jan. 23, 1997]; cf., Matter of Town of Hempstead v State Div. of Human Rights, 233 AD2d 451, appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 1029, lv denied 90 NY2d 807).
The Division properly amended the complaint to add petitioner Romero as an individual respondent since the amendment related back to the original complaint and did not prejudice him, the initial filing against his restaurant having placed him on notice that his personal conduct toward complainant was the underlying issue in the case (see, Matter of Town of Lumberland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 229 AD2d 631).
We have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.