Romain v. State Div. of Human Rights
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Ferguson v. New York State Div. of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Matter of Horowitz v. Foster (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Cappuccia v. New York State Div. of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
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
In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated June 28, 2011, which dismissed the petitioner’s administrative complaint, upon a finding that there was no probable cause to believe that Capital One, N.A., doing business as Capital One Bank, engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in terminating the petitioner’s employment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered October 28, 2011, which denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the SDHR) should be upheld unless it is arbitrary and capricious, or lacking a rational basis in the record (see Matter of Rauch v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 73 AD3d 930, 930 [2010]; Matter of Maltsev v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 31 AD3d 641, 641 [2006]). Under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, a determination should not be disturbed unless “the agency’s ac
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the amended petition and dismissed the proceeding. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.